OM ENCLAVE(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-8(2), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure tax is assessed on the right person, right income, and in the right assessment year, considering the new development.
What were the facts?
A search was conducted on the assessee company's director, who admitted the company was a shell entity used for providing accommodation entries. This admission occurred after the initial assessment was framed.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment needs to be re-framed based on a subsequent admission by the director regarding the company's nature as a shell entity.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH ‘A’, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]
ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, JM:
This appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is directed against the order dated 09.08.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals, NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the ‘ld. CIT(A)’].
At the outset the ld. AR brought to our knowledge that a new development has taken place in the case of assessee. As per the ld. AR, after the assessment was framed against the assessee, a search was carried out on 03.01.2018 wherein the statement of director of this assessee company was also recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act wherein for question no. 9 the director has accepted that the assessee company which is seen at serial no. 12 of the table given under answer to question no. 9 that it was controlled and managed by him and that the assessee company is a paper / shell company formed with the sole purpose of providing accommodation entries in the form of bogus share premium / bogus unsecured loans to different beneficiaries. In the light of the aforesaid development, in the interest of justice and fair play, the assessment made, need to OM Enclave (P) Ltd. be framed afresh. On the other hand, ld. DR has no objection to such prayer made by ld. AR of the assessee. In the light of the aforesaid new development, and keeping in mind, the settled position of law that the tax has to be assessed on the right person, right income and in the right assessment year, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication in the light of the new development after the search which happened on 03.01.2018.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 132(4)
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Anilkumar Jayantilal Khatri, Ahmedabad vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2053/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026