ROYAL FORTUNE BUSINESS CONSULTANTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 959/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 January 2024AY 2012-13Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member)3 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 upheld the order of the CIT(A) as the assessee failed to appear and provide any submissions or documents to challenge the reopening or the assessment. The appeal was dismissed due to the assessee's lack of interest in pursuing the matter.

What were the facts?

The assessee is aggrieved by the confirmation of an addition of Rs. 4.90 Crore as unexplained cash credit. The assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer, CIT(A), or the Tribunal, despite notices.

What were the issues?

The primary issues were the validity of the reassessment proceedings and the confirmation of unexplained cash credit. The Tribunal also considered the ex-parte nature of the orders and the assessee's failure to appear.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 151,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumar

order : January 09, 2024 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 27.07.2023 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

2.

No one has put in appearance on the behalf of the assessee despite notice. However, on earlier date also i.e. 08.11.2023, the notice was issued to the assessee but no one has put in appearance and the case was adjourned for today. It seems that the assessee is not interested in pursuing its appeal, therefore, we proceed to adjudicate this appeal after hearing the ld. DR and after going through the records.

1.

Assessment year: 2012-13 Royal Fortune Business Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. 3. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal:

“1. For that the assessment order passed by the Ld. A.O. u/s. 147 r.w.144 is bad in law and is liable to be quashed.

2. For that the reassessment proceedings initiated after 4 years from the end of the assessment year without there being any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly any material facts is without jurisdiction being barred by limitation.

3.

For that the reasons mentioned in the assessment order, the same lack and tangible material and suffers from borrowed satisfaction, therefore the entire proceedings are bad in law and ab initio void. Moreover it appears that before initiation of reassessment proceedings either no approval was obtained as mandated u/s 151 or the approval, if any, was granted mechanically.

4.

For that the Ld. AO erred in passing the assessment order ex- parte without providing the assessee any effective opportunity of being heard.

5.

For that Ld. CIT(A) also erred in passing the appellate order ex- parte without providing the appellant any appellant any effective opportunity of being heard. Even otherwise, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the appeal ex-parte without individually dealing with each of the grounds on merits.

6.

For that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO erred in assessing the entire share capital of Rs. 4.90 Crore as unexplained cash credit.

7.

For that the appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete all or any of the grounds of appeal

.”

3. The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved from the confirmation of addition of Rs.4,90,00,000/- on account of share capital received by the assessee treated by the Income Tax authorities as unexplained cash credits.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →