M/S VIPUL EASTERN INFRACON (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD.8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 66/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 October 2017AY 2011-20123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Pr. CIT's notice for hearing was returned unserved. It also noted that the Pr. CIT's findings were not properly adjudicated with the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Pr. CIT for proper adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed certain payments as compensation. The Principal CIT (Pr. CIT) opined that these payments were not business expenditure as the recipients were neither landowners nor had agreements with the assessee. The Pr. CIT initiated revision proceedings under Section 263.

What were the issues?

Whether the Pr. CIT's revision order under Section 263 was validly passed without proper notice and adjudication to the assessee. Whether the payments made by the assessee constituted business expenditure.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM:

This appeal by the Assessee is against the order dt. 30-10- 2015 passed by the Pr. CIT, Kolkata for the assessment year 2011- 12.

2.

Heard both the parties and perused the material on record.

3.

The ld.AR of the assessee submits that the AO allowed the payments made to an extent of Rs. 225 lakh under the head as ‘Compensation Payment’. The Pr. CIT U/Sec 263 proceedings was of the opinion that the payment of Rs. 150 lakhs paid to Topline Barter Pvt. Ltd was neither owner of the land nor had any agreement with the assessee for the use of the land. Regarding other payment of 75 lakhs, the Pr. CIT was of the opinion that the assessee entered with an agreement of sale of property with Global Casting Pvt. Ltd, but sold to Rose Valley Hotels & Entertainments Ltd. Thereby, he held that the said payments were not business expenditure of the assessee and held assessment order dt. 17-03-2014 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and directed the AO to reassess the income of the assessee after making proper enquiry by giving an opportunity to the assessee.

4.

The ld.DR submits that the AO did not consider the payment at all in the assessment proceedings and escaped the said income to tax. He also submitted that the assessee did not co-operate with the AO and the CIT in the respective proceedings.

5.

We find that the Pr. CIT issued notice dt. 14-09-2015 fixing the hearing on 30-09-2015. The said notice was returned unserved with an endorsement ‘not claimed’. We note that the Pr. CIT on perusal of the assessment record found that the AO failed to make proper enquiry which were required to be made to ascertain the relevant facts which are necessary to allow the claim of assessee and the said opinion or finding formed by the Pr. CIT was not prosecuted by the assessee before him and without there being proper adjudication, we restrain ourselves in interfering with the order of the Pr. CIT and therefore, taking into considerations the submissions of both the parties and in the interest of justice, we deem it fit and proper to remand the grounds as raised by the assessee before us to the file of the Pr. CIT. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 06-10-2017

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →