PSB INVESTMENT PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. NFAC, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 383/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2024AY 2014-15Bench: Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee submitted an affidavit stating no sum was received from JVPL. Given this rebuttal and the fact that the addition was based on this premise, the matter was restored to the AO for verification of the affidavit and bank statements.

What were the facts?

The assessee company, PSB Investment Pvt. Ltd., received an addition of Rs. 10 lacs on account of unexplained cash credit from M/s. Janardhan Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. (JVPL), which the AO alleged to be a paper company. The assessee claimed it did not receive funds from JVPL but from another entity and had refunded it.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of unexplained cash credit from an alleged paper company was justified, and if the assessee's claim of receiving funds from a different source and refunding it warrants further examination.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

PSB Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assessing Officer, 71/1, Panchanantala Road, National Faceless Assessment Howrah-711101 Centre, Delhi (PAN: AABCP5280F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appearances by: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR appeared for the Appellant Shri L. N. Dash, Addl. CIT (DR) appeared for Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : 09.05.2024 Date of pronouncing the order : 28.05.2024 ORDER

Per Manish Borad, Accountant Member:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2014-15 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short Ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 13.02.2024 arising out of the assessment order passed u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Act by Assessing Officer (in short “AO”), National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi dated 23.03.2022.

2.

The only issue for our consideration is whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit at Rs.10 lacs received from M/s. Janardhan Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. (in short “JVPL”) alleging it to be a paper company.

PSB Investment Pvt. Ltd., AY: 2014-15 At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee with the support of an affidavit dated 13.05.2024 enclosing therewith a copy of bank statement stated that it had not received the sum of Rs. 10 lakh from M/s. JVPL but similar amount was received from Maa Vaishnavi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. and the same was refunded during the year itself through RTGS. He further submitted that the order of Ld. CIT(A) is ex parte because assessee failed to appear and even before the AO assessee could not make proper compliance and, therefore, prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of AO for examining the correctness of the claim of the assessee that it had not received any sum from alleged paper company M/s. JVPL.

3.

Ld. DR, on the other hand, while arguing in the matter vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities.

4.

We have heard both the representatives and carefully perused the material placed before us. We note that the assessee is a Pvt. Ltd. company and filed its return of income on 30.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs.31,22,710/- and the said return was processed u/s. 143(1) on 03.02.2015. Thereafter, the case was reopened by issue of notice u/s. 148 dated 30.03.2021. The assessee company is engaged in the business of stock broking and related activities. Ld. AO based on the information came to a conclusion that assessee has received unsecured loan from M/s. JVPL. Ld. AO alleged it to be a paper company managed and controlled by entry operator. Though assessee rebutted the allegation by pleading various judicial pronouncements but failed to get any relief. Ld. AO added the sum of Rs. 10 lakh u/s. 68 of the Act. Further, before the Ld. CIT(A) on account of non- appearance no relief was given to assessee.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →