DCIT CC 45, MUMBAI vs. ACCURATE MERCANTILE P. LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1957/MUM/2011Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 November 2016AY 2006-075 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Assessee did not appear for any of the hearings, and notices served at their given address were returned as the Assessee did not exist there. The Tribunal directed the Revenue to serve notice to the Assessee.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal heard appeals from both the Revenue and the Assessee for assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08. The Assessee appealed additions made by the Assessing Officer on unsecured loans, while the Revenue appealed deletions of additions related to share application money.

What were the issues?

The primary issue is the unexplained cash credits in the form of unsecured loans and share application money. The secondary issue is the lack of representation from the Assessee despite repeated notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “I” BENCH

Before: SHRI RAJENDRA, AM & SHRI C.N.PRASAD, JM

Hearing: 01/11/2016Pronounced: 18/11/2016

PER C.N.PRASAD (J.M.) : All these appeals are filed by Revenue and Assessee for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08 against various orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Assessee filed the appeals wherever the CIT confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards unsecured loans as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Act and the Revenue filed appeals for the Assessment years

2 2005-06 to 2007-08 against the deletion of additions made by the CIT (Appeals) in respect of share application money which was treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 by the Assessing Officer.

2.

These appeals were posted for hearing on several dates from time to time and there was no representation by the Assessee in any of the occasions on the day the matters were listed. The Bench directed the CIT DR to serve notice to the Assessee. When the matter came up for hearing on 1st November 2016, the Learned DR informed the Bench that the Assessing Officer deputed Inspector to serve the notice of hearing at the premises of the Assessee namely Accurate Mercantile (P) Ltd., Hindvi Bhawan, Shop No.1, Plot No.13, Sector-I, Vashi, Navi Mumbai- 400703. The DR submits that since the Assessee does not exist at the given address, the Inspector affixed the notice of hearing at the given address and sent report dated 19/09/16 to the Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle) 8(2), Mumbai, who in turn informed the

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →