ITO, WD-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CHANCELLOR COMMODEAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1239/KOL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 April 2018AY 2009-20102 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the AO, who was instructed to investigate further.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition made under Section 68. The assessee did not cooperate with the AO, leading to an ex-parte order. The CIT(A) deleted the addition without a remand report.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition under Section 68 without a remand report, and if the assessee's lack of cooperation warranted a different approach.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 144,Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH: KOLKATA

Hearing: 10.04.2018Pronounced: 18.04.2018

This appeal filed by the revenue is against the order of Ld. LD. CIT(A)-2, Kolkata, dated 30.06.2015 for AY 2009-10. 2. The sole ground of appeal of the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition made u/s. 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

3. At the outset itself, the Ld. DR pointed out that the assessee did not cooperate before the AO by not attending through the directors/share holders, so, AO passed order u/s. 144 of the Act. However, the Ld. CIT(A) without calling for remand report from AO has deleted the addition u/s. 68 of the Act. Therefore, he wants us to reverse the order of Ld. CIT(A) and restore the order of AO. The Ld. AR could not justify the action of Ld. CIT(A), so we are inclined to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to AO and direct the assessee to cooperate and attend diligently before AO. The AO is directed to do investigate as per the guidelines issued by the Ld. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act so that the pernicious practice of black money can be stamped out.

4. In the result, the appeal of revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 18th April, 2018. Sd/- Sd/- (J. Sudhakar Reddy) (A. T. Varkey) Accountant Member Judicial Member April, 2018 Dated: 18th Jd.(Sr.P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - ITO, Wd-6(1), Kolkata 2 Respondent – M/s. Chancellor Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., 15, Noormal Lohia Lane, 3rd floor, Kolkata-700 007

3. The CIT(A) 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 →