PRARAMBH MULTITRADE (P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1014/KOL/2023Status: HeardITAT Kolkata02 January 2024AY 2009-10Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member), Shri Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member)4 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the amount was indeed an advance against shares and not sundry creditors. Therefore, there was no cessation of liability, and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was unjustified.

What were the facts?

The assessee treated an amount as advance against shares received from two parties. The Assessing Officer treated this amount as sundry creditors and made an addition under Section 41(1) for cessation of liability.

What were the issues?

Whether the amount treated as sundry creditors by the AO was actually an advance against shares, and if so, whether Section 41(1) was applicable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 41(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

order : January 02, 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 24.08.2023 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. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Order passed u/s 250 is bad in law as well as on facts of the case.

1.

2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A) - NFAC erred in law as well as on facts of the case by not providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant company.

Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s Prarambh Multitrade Pvt. Ltd 3. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A) -NFAC erred in law as well as on facts of the case was wrong in deciding the case on merits only and did not deal the legal issues pray to him.

4.

That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A) - NFAC erred in law as well as on facts of the case by not considering the fact that case was reopened on the basis of reasons recorded for making addition u/s 68 but the addition was made u/s 41 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

5.

That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A) - NFAC erred in law as well as on facts of the case in not dealing the grounds of appeal

in respect of non-disposal of objections before passing the assessment order.

6. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A) - NFAC erred in law as well as on facts of the case by confirming the addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer by making addition of sundry creditors of Rs.2,22,65,000/- by invoking the provision of section 41(1) and making addition by treating the aforesaid amount as cessation of liability.

7. That the appellant craves to leave, add, amend or adduce any of the grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings.”

3. The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.2,22,65,000/- u/s 41(1) of the Act on account of cessation of liability in respect of sundry creditors shown by the assessee.

More judgments on Section 41(1)

All 1,943 judgments and leading authorities on Section 41(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →