M/S SINGHVAHINI VINIJYA PVT LTD,HOWRAH vs. C.I.T KOLKATA - I, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2013/KOL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 August 2017AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the issues regarding the loan amount and miscellaneous expenses to the AO for fresh adjudication, stating that the AO was not given adequate opportunity to verify the evidence. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was dismissed due to a significant delay.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of a Rs. 35,00,000 loan amount and Rs. 4,23,182 interest expenses, and the allowance of Rs. 14,20,176 miscellaneous expenses. The CIT(A) had deleted the addition on the loan amount based on confirmation letters without a remand report from the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions without allowing the AO adequate opportunity to verify evidence, and whether the assessee's cross-objection should be admitted despite a substantial delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH ‘C’ KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, AM & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM ]

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.1933/Kol/2013
C.O.No.44/Kol/2017

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

ORDER

PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM:

1.

This is an appeal by the Revenue directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-(A)-XXIV, Kolkata relating to A.Y. 2005-06 on the following grounds : : 1) "That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)- XXIV, Kolkata, has erred in law as well as in facts in deleting the loan amount of Rs 35,00,000."

2) "That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)- XXIV, Kolkata, has erred in law as well as in facts in deleting the interest expenses of Rs.4,23,182 on the loan amount of Rs 35,00,000."

3) "That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)- XXIV, Kolkata, has erred in law as well as in facts in allowing Miscellaneous expenses of Rs 14,20,176."

& C.O.No.44/Kol/2017 M/s. Bengal Waterproof Ltd. A.Y.2005-06 2 The Assessee has filed the Cross Objection. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issue of notice by RPAD. There was no application moved by the assessee for adjournment either. Under the circumstances we dispose of the case ex-parte on merits qua after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative.

3.

Heard the learned Departmental Representative. The ld. CIT(A) in this case granted relief to the assessee of a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- out of an addition of Rs.60,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). The ld. CIT(A) notes that the AO has not submitted the remand report despite several reminders. He deleted the addition based on original confirmation letters filed by the assessee from Ms. Star Credit Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Raimcom Sales Ltd and M./s. Udit Finance & Leasing Co.Ltd. The balance of the addition was confirmed.

4.

In our view the AO should have been given adequate opportunity to verify this evidence filed by the assessee. Hence we set aside this issue to the file of AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Accordingly ground no.1 raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

Ground No.2 raised by the revenue is consequential in nature.

6.

Ground No.3 is on the issue of miscellaneous expenses. The First Appellate Authority in his order restricted the disallowance on the ground that the AO failed to furnish the remand report. We are of the opinion that this issue should also be sent back to the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. In our view, the ld. CIT(A) has not given adequate opportunity to the AO.

7.

In the result ground no.2 raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. & C.O.No.44/Kol/2017 M/s. Bengal Waterproof Ltd. A.Y.2005-06 3

9.

The Cross Objection of the assessee is delayed by 1380 days. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay. After perusing the same we are of the considered view that this is not a fit case for condonation of delay. Hence the delay is not condoned and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is not admitted.

10.

In the result the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Court on 23.08.2017.

Sd/- Sd/- [S.S.Viswanethra Ravi] [ J.Sudhakar Reddy ] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated : 23.08.2017. [RG PS] Copy of the order forwarded to: 1.M/s. Bengal Waterproof Ltd., 4th Floor, Duckback House, 41, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017. 2. D.C.I.T., Circle-7, Kolkata 3. C.I.T. (A)-XXIV, Kolkata 4. C.I.T.-III, Kolkata. 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. True Copy By order,

Senior Private Secretary Head of Office/D.D.O, ITAT Kolkata Benches

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →