ITO, WARD-32(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KUMARI TANVI KEJRIWAL, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1849/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 December 2017AY 2014-153 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 order, finding that the AO failed to provide evidence and cross-examination, and made the addition based on presumption without independent investigation.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 38,11,421/- to the assessee's income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted this addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO under Section 68 was based on proper evidence and independent application of mind, and if the assessee was provided with necessary documents and opportunities for cross-examination.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH : KOLKATA

Before: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, AM ]

Hearing: 14.11.2017Pronounced: 20.12.2017

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Kolkata [ in short the ld CIT(A)] dated 31.05.2017 which was passed in appeal against the order passed by the ITO, Ward-32(3), Kolkata [ in short the ld AO] under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 27.12.2016 for the Assessment Year 2014-15.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition of Rs. 38,11,421/- made by the Assessing officer u/s 68 of the Act.

Kumari Tanvi Kejriwal A.Yr.2014-15 3. After hearing the rival submissions, I find that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition by observing that:

(a) The Ld. AO did not provide the copies of evidences received by him from Director of Investigations, Kolkata, based on which he made the addition to the assessee.

(b) The cross-examination of the persons whose statements were relied upon by the Investigation Wing and the Assessing Officer for making the addition were not provided to the assessee.

(c) The Ld. AO mechanically and arbitrarily followed the investigation report without establishing any link of the Report with the assessee and without any independent investigation on independent application of mind.

(d) The addition to income was done on presumption and assumptions without any authentic legal evidence.

4.

The Ld. DR could not controvert the factual findings of the Ld. CIT(A). He could not also controvert the contention of the Ld. counsel for the assessee that this issue is covered by an order of Division Bench of Tribunal, in the case of Mahendra Kumar Baid (supra). No contrary decision is brought to my notice by the Ld. DR.

Kumari Tanvi Kejriwal A.Yr.2014-15 5. In view of the above discussion, I uphold the order of the first appellate authority and dismiss the said appeal of the revenue.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Court on 20.12.2017

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →