THE BRAHMAMANGALAM GSCB LTD NO 2966,KOTTAYAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 831/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 August 2024AY 2017-18Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), Shri Amarjit Singh (Accountant Member)3 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal proceeded to hear the appeal ex-parte as no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. The specific decision on the merits of the addition is not detailed in the provided excerpt, as the hearing was ex-parte.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Brahmamangalam GSCB Ltd., is appealing an addition of Rs. 1,21,57,500 made by the Assessing Officer. The addition was based on the AO's view that the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the nature and source of investments made during the note ban period, despite providing depositor details.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee provided a satisfactory explanation for the nature and source of investments made during the demonetization period. The validity of the addition made by the Assessing Officer on this ground.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 12.08.2024

Per Bench : This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2017-18 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)]’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/ NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057105727(1) dated 16.10.2023 in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

1.

The case was called twice. None appeared on behest of the assessee. Therefore, we proceeded to hear the appeal exparte qua the assessee.

2.

The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: - “1. The Assessing officer mistaken in making addition of Rs. 1,21,57,500/- which the appellant has duly accounted in its books of account and deposited with other scheduled banks during the note ban period stating that satisfactory explanation about the nature and source of investments has The Brahmamangalam GSCB Ltd. No.2966. not been provided, even after the appellant has given the list of parties who deposited the amount with ID proof details like PAN, Voter ID etc. The appellant was forced to collect the SBN during the note ban period wide circular No.42/2016 issued by the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram, a State Government agent controlling Co- Operative Societies in Kerala. Hence the addition is unwarranted and is to be deleted.

2. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the hearing, it is respectfully prayed that all the grounds may be adjudicated, and justice rendered to the appellant 3. The Learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal petition without providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

3.

Learned DR vehemently argues during the course of hearing that the assessee had not filed all the relevant details of its corresponding members having deposited the cash amounting to Rs.1,21,57,500/- in their respective accounts during the demonetisation period and, therefore, s. 68 addition of unexplained cash credits has been rightly made herein. The assessee, on the other hand, pleads to have filed all the relevant details of PAN, voter ID, etc. in the assessment proceedings. The fact, however, remains that there is no indication in the case file that the assessee had placed on record the proof of KYC details of all the depositors. Faced with this situation we deem it proper to restore the assessee’s instant sole grievance back to the Assessing Officer for afresh adjudication as per law subject to the rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove all the relevant facts in the consequential proceedings with three effective opportunities at it’s own risk and responsibility only.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →