SHIVRATRI EXIM(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1004/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 January 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer regarding share capital and premium. The assessee failed to provide sufficient explanation or evidence to corroborate its claim, even before the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The assessee company claimed share capital and premium of Rs. 21,31,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer made an addition for this amount due to insufficient explanation of the source. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte for non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained share capital and premium is justified. Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144,Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

For Respondent: Shri Bonnine Debarma, Addl. CIT
Hearing: 22.01.2024Pronounced: 31.01.2024

Present for: Appellant by : N o n e Respondent by : Shri Bonnine Debarma, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 22.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 31.01.2024 O R D E R

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1054818374(1) dated 02.08.2023 passed against the assessment order u/s.143(3) read with sec. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 26.03.2015 for AY 2012-13.

2. Grounds taken by the assessee are as under: “1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. C.I.T.(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTER(AFAC) [hereinafter referred to as C.I.T.(A)] erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter referred to as AO).

2.

That under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT (A) erred in passing order ex-parte.

Shivratri Exim Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 3. That under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of a sum of Rs. 21,31,00,000/- made by the AO for the share capital raised. The addition is unjustified and need to be deleted.”

3.

Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2012 reporting total income of Rs.Nil. Case of the assessee was taken for complete scrutiny under CASS for which statutory notices were issued and served on the assessee. In the assessment order, Ld. AO noted that assessee has furnished documentary evidence which have been checked and verified. In the course of assessment proceeding, Ld. AO raised queries in respect of transaction of issuing shares amounting to Rs.33,10,000/- along with a premium of Rs. 20,97,90,000/- received. Ld. AO noted that owing to insufficient source to be explained merely by submission of papers or by verbal narration on the queries so raised, made the addition in respect of claim of increasing in share capital and premium received by assessee and also made the addition relatable to the income forming part of total income is Rs.17,799/- u/s. 14A of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the same ex parte without going into merits of the case. According to him, since no written submission/information/documents were filed by the assessee, the appeal was decided on the basis of material available on record and was thus, dismissed. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

We note that impugned assessment order is passed u/s. 144 of the Act since assessee did not comply with the show cause notices and summons issued u/s. 131 seeking details and explanation on the transaction of share capital including share premium raised during the year for which assessee had placed on record voluminous documents without explaining them. Before the Ld. CIT(A), we observe that hearings were fixed on several occasions but nobody responded to

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →