M/S. BARTER IMPEX INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4966/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 January 2017AY 2012-135 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the tax authorities had not adequately addressed the business activities of the assessee and the reasons for its cessation. The assessee also failed to provide evidence to support its claim that the 26AS entry did not pertain to it. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a speaking order.

What were the facts?

The assessee company returned NIL income but claimed a loss of Rs. 1,87,501. The Assessing Officer disallowed the loss as the assessee had no business activity. Additionally, an amount of Rs. 1,18,125 reflected in 26AS from M/s Pyramid Sales Corporation, which was not declared by the assessee, was added to the income.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of claimed business loss was justified when the assessee had no business activity, and whether an addition based on 26AS entry was valid without proper verification and confrontation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 206C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-I’ NEW DELHI

Before: SMT DIVA SINGH

Hearing: 07.11.2016Pronounced: 06.01.2017

the circumstances, the AO may have been justified in awaiting the evidence of the factual information relied upon. Even otherwise, it is seen that no effort has been made by the tax authorities to address what was the business of the assessee when it was in operation and by what event or fact it is claimed and accepted that the business has stopped. Even the Ld.AR it is noticed was not sure when the business was stopped. In the circumstances where the assessee has shied away from supporting its claim that the said concern also accepts that there was no business with the assessee, it will be appropriate to restore the issue back to the file of AO directing the said authority to pass a speaking order in accordance with law. Needless to say that the assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

9.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes The order is pronounced in the open court on 06th of January, 2017. Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *Amit Kumar* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT NEW DELHI

I.T.A .No.-4966/Del/2016 Barter Impex India P.Ltd. vs ITO

More judgments on Section 142(1)

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →