J V STOCK BROKING PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, KANPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 553/LKW/2024Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 December 2024AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)16 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the representatives of both the assessee and the revenue agreed on the course of action. The assessee's primary contention was that the CIT(A) had passed the order without providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Revenue did not object to this submission. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to restore the disputed issue of the addition of Rs. 5,47,532/- back to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to pass a de novo order on this issue in accordance with the law, after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the addition itself, as the matter was being remanded for a fresh hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee, J.V. Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 against an order dated 12/07/2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The Assessing Officer (AO) had passed an assessment order on 10/12/2018, assessing the total income at Rs. 23,68,932/-. This assessment included an addition of Rs. 5,47,532/- made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO believed there was concealment of income due to bogus transactions with fake companies, resulting in claimed losses and Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) from penny stocks. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed the order without providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 5,47,532/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed the impugned order without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the issue should be restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after providing a proper hearing. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's representative expressed no objection to the assessee's request for restoration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 10(38),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A
For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma

2011-12 against impugned appellate order dated 12/07/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1066640589(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].

(B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that in this case assessment order dated 10/12/2018 was passed by the Assessing Officer whereby the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.23,68,932/- (rounded off to Rs.23,68,630/-). In the aforesaid order, an addition of Rs.5,47,532/- was made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the I. T. Act. Relevant portion of the assessment order is reproduced below:

(B.1) The assessee’s appeal against the aforesaid assessment order was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 12/07/2014. Relevant portion of the impugned order of learned CIT(A) is reproduced below:

(B.1) The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 12/07/2024 of the learned CIT(A). At the time of hearing, the learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) has passed the aforesaid order without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. He submitted that the issue regarding the aforesaid addition of Rs.5,47,532/- should be restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) with the direction to pass fresh order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Learned D.R. for Revenue expressed no objection to this.

(C) In view of the foregoing and as representatives of both sides are in agreement with this, the issue in dispute regarding aforesaid addition of Rs.5,47,532/- is restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) with the direction to pass de novo order on this issue in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

(D) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 18/12/2024)

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →