M/S APEX DEALCOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1230/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 June 2018AY 2012-132 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' orders, which had raised serious doubts about the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the share premium. The absence of a paper book to rebut these findings further supported the decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 was directed against the CIT(A)'s order upholding the addition of share premium amount of ₹20,54,94,300/-. The assessee remained absent throughout the proceedings, both before the Assessing Officer and the appellate authorities.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the addition of share premium amount and whether the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate its genuineness.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “D” KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

O R D E R

PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 is directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Kolkata’s order dated 17.02.2017, passed in case No.21/CIT(A)-23/W-4(3)/16-17. Upholding Assessing Officer’s action adding its share premium amount of ₹20,54,94,300/- in ex parte assessment order dated 27.02.2015, in proceeding u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’.

2.

Case called twice none-appears at the assessee’s behest. The registry has already sent an RPAD to the assessee on 20.04.2018 of today’s hearing. We therefore proceed ex parte against the assessee in the instant appeal.

M/s Apex Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-No.4(3) Kol. Page 2 3. We now advert to merits of assessee’s sole substantive grievance. It appears that the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) have passed their respective orders ex parte against the assessee whilst adding the impugned share premium of ₹20,54,94,300/- during the course of assessment as upheld in lower appellate proceedings. The same sufficiently indicates that the assessee has throughout been not interested in prosecuting its grievance.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →