M/S RUCHI VINTRADE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-9(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 168/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 June 2018AY 2009-20103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had issued summons under Section 131, and some of the share subscriber companies had provided replies and documentary evidence. The CIT(A) had not considered these facts. Therefore, the assessee deserves another opportunity before the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an ex-parte assessment adding the assessee's share capital/premium of ₹4,22,00,000. The assessee failed to provide necessary details regarding identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness during scrutiny.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was given sufficient opportunity to present evidence and whether the CIT(A) properly considered the evidence submitted by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 142(1),Section 131

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA

Before: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Shri Sandeep Sapra, Advocate & अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ashutosh Agarwal, CA Shri Amitava Bhattacharya, Addl-CIT-DR ��यथ� क� ओर से/By Respondent 04-06-2018 सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing 15-06-2018 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 arises against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kolkata’s order dated 02.12.2016, passed in case No.403/CIT(A)-3/W-9(3)/Kol/15-16, confirming Assessing Officer’s action adding its share capital / premium amount of ₹4,22,00,000/-, involving proceedings u/s. 144/263/147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

A.Y. 2009-10 M/s Ruchi Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Wd-9(3) Kol. Page 2 2. It emerges at the outset that the Assessing Officer had framed the assessment ex parte on 18.03.2015 adding the impugned share premium qua 1,68,800 units of equity shares having face value of 10/- each sold at a premium of ₹240/- per share. He recorded in assessment order that the assessee did not appear alongwith the relevant details so as to satisfy the three necessary conditions of identity, genuineness and creditworthiness thereof during the course of scrutiny.

3.

The assessee preferred its appeal against the said addition. It chose to file voluminous additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 as well. The CIT(A) observes in para-4 that the said additional evidence does not deserve to be admitted since the Assessing Officer had granted it sufficient opportunities after issuing section 142(1) notice. He thereafter affirms the impugned addition after a detailed discussion doubting genuineness and creditworthiness thereof.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →