DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NTC INDUSTRIES LTD. (FORMERLY R.D.B. INDUSTRIES), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2197/KOL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 February 2018AY 2006-20073 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment was in violation of the proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed an order of the CIT(A) which had accepted the assessee's contention that the reopening of assessment was bad in law. The assessee, engaged in real estate and cigarette manufacturing, had its assessment reopened after the original completion.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid, considering the assessee's full and true disclosure of material facts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi]

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member] Assessment Year: 2006-07 DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata………………………..….…………………………………….…….……...Appellant Aaykar Bhawan 4th Floor P-7, Chowringhee Square Kolkata- 700 09 M/s. NTC Industries Ltd………………….………………………………..……………………..…. Respondent M/s. Zoom Enterprises Ltd. X-1, Block-EP Sector-V Salt Lake Electronics Compoud Kolkata – 700 091 [PAN : AABCR 4307 D] Appearances by: None, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, DR, appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : January 23rd, 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : February 9th, 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Central-II, Kolkata, (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT (A)’), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 29/08/2014, for the Assessment Year 2006-07.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issual of notice through RPAD as well as through the Department. This case is coming up before up this Bench from 18th April, 2017. On none of the dates of hearing, the assessee appeared either by himself or through an Authorized Representative. The dates of hearing were 18/04/2017, 20/0/2017, 31/07/2017, 21/09/2017, 06/11/2017, 06/12/2017 and today i.e., 23/01/2018. Under these circumstances, we dispose of the case ex parte on merits, after hearing the ld. D/R.

2 Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/s. NTC Industries Ltd 3. Heard the ld. D/R. After perusing the papers on record and orders of the authorities below, we hold as follows:- The assessee is a company and is in the business of real estate development and manufacturing of cigarettes. It filed its return of income on 06/12/2006, declaring total income at Rs.1,45,17,593/-. The Assessing Officer completed assessment on 28/03/2014, determining total income at Rs.60.09,245/-, interalia making addition of capital advances written off. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal.

4.

The ld. First Appellate Authority, accepted the contention of the assessee that the re-opening was bad in law. Thus, the assessee was struck down and the additions were not adjudicated on merits.

5.

We find that the re-opening in this case was done by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act, on 21/03/2013. Assessment was originally completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 31/12/2007. The Assessing Officer at para 2, 3 & 4 of his order has given the background for re-opening the assessee, which is extracted for ready reference:-

6. The ld. CIT(A), has at para 5 onwards, come to a conclusion that there is no failure on part of the assessee in fully and truly disclosing material facts required for the assessment and hence the re-opening is in violation to the 1st Proviso to Section 147 of the Act. This finding of the ld. CIT(A), could not be controverted by the ld. D/R. Hence, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss this appeal of the revenue.

6.

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →