RADIANCE EDIFICE INFRA REALTY LTD.,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD-15(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 953/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 July 2018AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without adjudicating the issues on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the appeal for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee company dealt in land development funded by prospective buyers. During assessment, the AO noted negative cash balances and unexplained credit entries, leading to additions under Section 68. The CIT(A) passed an ex parte order dismissing the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard and without adjudicating the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH : KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Shri M.Balaganesh, AM & Hon’ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM]

Hearing: 26.06.2018Pronounced: 06.07.2018

ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM

1.

This appeal by the Assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-5, Kolkata [in short the ld CIT(A)] in Appeal No.237/CIT(A)- 5/Wd-15(3)/15-16 dated 22.11.2016 against the order passed by the ITO, Ward-15(3), Kolkata [ in short the ld AO] under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 30.03.2015 for the Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned CIT(A)-5 is not justified in passing an ex parte order by denying a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

Radiance Edifice Infra Realty Ltd.. A.Yr. 2012-13 2. For the order of the Learned CIT(A)-5 is not justified in confirming the order of the Learned AO in treating the collection from different parties as negative cash balance of Rs. 37,00,893/- and Rs. 32,11,235/- and making the addition of the same in the total income of the appellant u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Without considering the nature of recording in the books of accounts.

3.

For that the CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 90,00,000/- which is actually debit of receipt through net banking from another unit.

4. For that the Learned CIT(A) has not properly considered the facts of case.

5. For that the orders of the lower authorities are against the accepted principles of law and natural justice.

The appellant craves for leave to add, alter and modify any grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal.

3. The brief facts of this appeal is that the assessee is a company engaged in dealing in land, plots which were developed out of funds provided by the prospective buyers and the said lands were handed over to those parties after development thereon. The return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 was filed by the assessee on 08.01.2013 declaring total income of Rs. NIL after claiming the current year loss of Rs. 3,18,02,669/-. In the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. AO observed that there was negative cash balance on 29.09.2011 to the tune of Rs. 37,00,893/- and on 31.01.2012 to the tune of Rs. 32,01,234.66/-. The assessee was not able to explain the source of cash withdrawal to explain the said negative cash balances. The ld. AO observed that the assessee was not able to explain the nature and source of credit of Rs. 90,00,000/- appearing on 31.01.2012 by proving the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction thereon. Accordingly, he brought all the three items totaling to Rs. 1,59,02,127/- to tax treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and before the Ld. CIT(A), none appeared on behalf of the assessee and the Ld. CIT(A) decided the Radiance Edifice Infra Realty Ltd.. A.Yr. 2012-13 appeal ex parte by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order and had not adjudicated the issue on merits taking into account the various submissions and evidences in support of the assessee’s submission. In these facts and circumstances, we deem it fit and appropriate, to set aside this appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication and direct him to take a decision uninfluenced by the earlier decision taken by him in this regard. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 06.07.2018 Sd/- Sd/- [S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] [ M.Balaganesh ] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated : 06.07.2018 SB, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to:

1. 1. Radiance Edifice Infra Realty Ltd., Mr. Shankar Dutta (Director), Subhas Nagar, Nabagram, Hooghly-711246.

2. ITO, Ward-15(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata- 700107. 3..C.I.T.- 4. C.I.T.- Kolkata.

5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →