C.P. ISPAT(UNIT 2) PVT. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, CIR-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1150/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 June 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) due to the change in management and lack of proper communication. The case was remanded for fresh assessment after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee company did not comply with notices during assessment proceedings due to a change in management following an NCLT order. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions based on non-representation, which were confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were justified when the assessee failed to represent due to a change in management. The need to provide a fair opportunity for assessment in such circumstances.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, JCIT, Sr. DR
Hearing: 03.06.2024Pronounced: 11.06.2024

Present for: Appellant by : N o n e Respondent by : Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, JCIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 03.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 11.06.2024 O R D E R

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)” passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2017-18 vide Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056683465(1) dated 30.09.2023.

2.

Neither any one appeared on behalf of the assessee nor the assessee has filed any adjournment application at the time of hearing before us. Since the appeal has been fixed on various dates and notice for hearing was also sent through e-mail and RPAD and no one

C.P. Ispat (Unit-2) Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2017-18. appeared for and on behalf of the assessee, hence, we dispose of the appeal after hearing the Ld. Sr. DR and the material available on record.

3.

Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under:

“1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing an ex parte order.

2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in estimating the net profit at Rs.40,07,370/- on the alleged suppressed sales conjectured by the AO.

3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the addition made by the AO to the tune of Rs.1,58,66,200/- as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68.

4.

The appellant craves leave to add further grounds of appeal

or alter the grounds at the time of hearing.”

4. Ground Nos.1 and 4 are general in nature and do not require any adjudication.

5. Ground no. 2 relates to confirming the addition on account of estimating the net profit at Rs.50,07,370/- on the suppressed sales by the AO and ground no. 3 relates to addition u/s. 68 of the Act. 5.1. The brief facts of the case are that assessee company filed its return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 12.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs. (-)31,74,46,396/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were served upon the assessee. It is observed from the assessment order that the assessee company did not comply with the notices but furnished a reply that the management was changed vide order passed by the NCLT, Kolkata and the new management of C.P. Ispat Pvt. Limited led consortium was the successful resolution applicant. Since no reply was received from the new management in the case of the erstwhile C.P. Ispat Pvt. Ltd., therefore, the AO made the additions which were also

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →