NAISHA INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-6(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 731/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 July 2018AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO to conduct inquiries as per the CIT's directions, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an order passed by the CIT(A) for AY 2008-09. The CIT had directed the AO to conduct inquiries into investing companies, but summons to the assessee's directors were unserved.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO properly conducted inquiries as directed by the CIT and whether the assessee was given adequate opportunity to present its case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 131

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “B”, KOLKATA

Before: SH.P.M.JAGTAP & SH. S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI

Hearing: 05.07.2018Pronounced: 11.07.2018

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 17.02.2016 passed by CIT(A)-6, Kolkata for AY 2008-09.

2.

After hearing both the parties, we find that Ld.CIT u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) directed to conduct inquiries in respect of investing companies as detailed there in at page No.4 of the assessment order. It is noticed from the AO’s order while giving effect to directions of CIT issued summons u/s 131 of the Act to the then Directors of the assessee at a respective addresses and the said summons returned unserved and no compliance was made before the AO in response to notice u/s 131 of the Act. The contention of Ld.AR, one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to prosecute its case before the AO in terms of the directions as given by CIT in revisional proceedings. Ld.CIT DR did not controvert the same. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice, we remand the matter to the file of the AO for its consideration in terms of specific directions given by CIT u/s 263 as reflect at page No.4 of the order of AO dated 29.03.2014. The relevant portion of which is reproduced herein below:-

i) “Examine the genuineness and source of share capital, not on a test check basis, but in respect of each and every shareholder by conducting independent enquiry not through the assessee. The bank account for the entire period should be examined in the course of verification to find out the money trail of the share capital. ii) Further the A.O. should examine the directors as well as examine the circumstances which necessitated the change in directorship if applicable. He should examine them on oath to verify their credentials as director and reach a logical conclusion regarding the controlling interest. iii) The A.O. is directed examine the source of realization from the liquidation of assets shown in the balance sheet after the change of Directors, if any.”

3.

The assessee is at liberty to file evidences if any in support of its contention.

AO shall construct the same to pass an order in accordance with law by giving opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court 11.07.2018.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →