M/S.VINCA VYAPAR (P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 782/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 January 2024AY 2012-2013Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)4 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 found the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal to be vague and unsubstantiated. Given the assessee's consistent non-compliance and lack of evidence at all stages, the Tribunal decided to adjudicate the matter ex parte.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a significant delay of 149 days. The assessee failed to provide necessary documentation to the Assessing Officer regarding share capital raised and investments made. The CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned and whether the additions made by the AO regarding share capital and Section 14A disallowance are justified, considering the assessee's failure to provide evidence.

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 SONJOY SARMA & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

For Respondent: Shri Anup Biswas, Addl. CIT
Hearing: 04.01.2024Pronounced: 17.01.2024

Present for: Appellant by : N o n e Respondent by : Shri Anup Biswas, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 04.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 17.01.2024 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/250/2022-23/1048374288(1) dated 30.12.2022 passed against the assessment order by ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 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. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) failed to provide valid opportunity of hearing since Ld. CIT(A) erred ) erred in ignoring 2 Vinca Vyapar Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 the adjournment request filed by assessee on 14/11/2022 seeking adjournment up to 29/11/2022.

4.

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.2,74,01,300/- made by the AO for the share capital raised. The addition is unjustified and need to be deleted.

5. For that, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts as well as in law in making addition of Rs. 11,857/- by resorting to section 14 A of the Income Tax Act 1961.

6.

That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal before or at the time hearing.”

3. We note that there is a delay of 149 days in filing the present appeal. A request for condonation of delay is placed on record dated 26.07.2023 by the assessee on its letter head. The reasons given for the cause of delay is that the Ld. Counsel for the assessee could not reach to the Tribunal office on the date 28.02.2023 due to big procession and consequent traffic blockage on the way. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is dated 30.12.2022 and the present appeal was due for filing on or before 28.02.2023. In the said application, it is stated that the Ld. Counsel for the assessee missed to file the appeal on 28.02.2023 which was filed on 28.07.2023. We fail to understand what prevented the assessee to file the appeal on the subsequent dates after the date on which counsel could not reach the Tribunal office due to traffic blockage and as such causing a delay of 149 days in filing the appeal. The reasons given by the assessee in its application for condonation of delay are general and vague in nature and in no way justified the delay caused in filing the appeal of 149 days. We also take note of the fact that impugned assessment order has been passed u/s. 144 of the Act since assessee did not comply with the notices and the show cause letter issued by the Ld. AO seeking details and explanation on the transaction of share capital including share premium raised during the year totalling to Rs.6,21,00,000/- and disallowance to be made u/s. 14A for the investments made by the assessee in equity shares.

3 Vinca Vyapar Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 4. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which also has been dismissed for non-prosecution as none appeared and no submissions were made before him. Even before us, the appeal filed is delayed by 149 days. Also this case has been listed earlier for hearing on which nobody appeared to represent the assessee. From the perusal of the impugned assessment order and the statement of facts placed on record, we note that assessee had raised its share capital comprising of Rs.6,21,60,000/- towards share capital and premium totalling to Rs.6,21,00,000/-. In the statement of facts, assessee has claimed that it has furnished all the relevant documentary evidences in support of the share capital so raised. However, from the records available it is not discernible about the fact of furnishing the records by the assessee. The conduct and behaviour of the assessee at all stages of the proceedings also do not in any way suggest us about availability of the records and documents furnished before the authorities below as claimed in the statement of facts. Ld. AO in his order has noted that since proper compliance has not been made, verification could not be made in respect of the transaction undertaken by the assessee. Considering the facts on record, we are inclined to adjudicate upon the matter ex parte qua the assessee. Thus, with the assistance of Ld. Sr. DR perusal of the material on record, we do not find any reason to interfere with the observations and findings given by the Ld. AO to sustain the addition so made. Accordingly, grounds taken by the assessee are dismissed.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →