M/S. JMB COMMERCIAL & CREDITS LTD. vs. I.T.O.,WARD - 6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 139/KOL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 June 2018AY 2002-20033 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed without providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing, as the notice of hearing was returned unserved. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2002-03 challenged an addition of unexplained share application money. The CIT(A) had upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer. A key issue was the validity of reassessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) provided a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and whether the reassessment proceedings were valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH ‘B’ KOLKATA

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

ORDER PER S.S.GODARA, JM:

This Assessee’s appeal for A.Y.2002-03 is directed against the CIT(A)-VI, Kolkata’s order dated 03.03.2011 in Appeal No.997/CIT(A)/VI/Kol/Wd..6(2)/2009-10 upholding the Assessing Officer’s action making section 68 addition of unexplained share application money amounting to Rs.1,05,00,000/- in assessment order dated 31.12.2009 involving proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act).

2.

The assessee has raised three substantive grounds inter alia challenging the lower appellate authority’s action alleging denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing, upholding validity of section 147 re-assessment proceedings and calls into question merits of the impugned share application money, respectively. The above second substantive issue of validity of reassessment appears to have been given up earlier as per the assessee’s Authorised Representative’s endorsement in the grounds of appeal in the instant case. We therefore advert to the first issue of denial of reasonable opportunity therein. Learned Departmental Representative is very fair in taking us to para – 4 of CIT(A)’s order recording that relevant notice of hearing sent to assessee’s Kanpur address could not be served. It therefore prima facie emerges that M/s JMB Commercial & Credits Ltd. A.Y.2002-03 2 there has been some communication gap attributable to the notice being returned unserved by the postal authorities. Coupled with this, Learned Departmental Representative fails to dispute the fact that the CIT(A)’s order upholding the impugned addition does not discuss the issue in the light of relevant evidence as per section 250(6) of the Act. We therefore deem it proper to restore the instant appeal back to the CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh on merits within three effective opportunities of hearing as per law. The assesee is directed to appear before the CIT(A) along with copy of the instant remand directions on 08.10.2018 for further consequential proceedings.

3. This assessee’s appeal is accepted for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Court on 27.06.2018.

Sd/- Sd/- [M.. Balaganesh ] [ S.S.Godara ] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated : 27.06.2018. [RG Sr.PS] Copy of the order forwarded to:

1.M/s JMB Commercial & Credits Ltd., C/o Anil Jaiswal & Co, 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur-208001, Uttar Pradesh 2.I.T.O., Ward-6(2) Kolkata.

3.

C.I.T.(A)- VI, Kolkata 4. C.I.T-II, Kolkata

More judgments on Section 68

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →