9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 911 - HC - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - unexplained sum credited in the book as Share Capital and Premium - ITAT deleting the addition made by the AO by order u/s 144/263 based on remand report - whether the Tribunal was right in affirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 4, Kolkata by noting the facts and circumstances of the case that the remand report was called for from the Assessing Officer, who has certified the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness and the identity of the share applicants - HELD THAT - Tribunal after noting the findings recorded by the CIT(A) held that the revenue has no locus standi to file the appeal against its own findings in the remand report. In this regard, the Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Madras in the case of Smt. B. Jayalakshmi v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Salary Circle-II, Chennai 2018 (8) TMI 208 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . The Tribunal also referred to the decision of a coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of D.C.I.T, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata vs. M/s. Shraddha Tower Pvt. Ltd 2018 (10) TMI 1405 - ITAT KOLKATA and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. We find that the Tribunal has rightly taken note of the legal position and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue and we find no grounds to interfere with the said order. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue.
Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal. 2. Addition of unexplained sum credited in the book as Share Capital and Premium. 3. Deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer based on remand report. 4. Explanation of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction by the assessee. Delay in filing the appeal: The High Court noted a delay of 427 days in filing the appeal. Despite an unsatisfactory explanation, the Court decided to consider the appeal on its merits. The delay was condoned, and the application for condonation of delay was allowed. Addition of unexplained sum credited in the book as Share Capital and Premium: The appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenged the deletion of an addition of ?17,63,00,000 under Section 68 of the Act. The Court examined whether the ITAT erred in deleting this addition. The Tribunal affirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) based on the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness and identity of the share applicants. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal held that the revenue had no standing to appeal against its own findings in the remand report. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal, answering the substantial questions of law against the revenue. Deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer based on remand report: The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal was based on the legal position that the revenue could not challenge its own findings in the remand report. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's order and upheld the dismissal of the appeal. Explanation of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction by the assessee: The Tribunal considered whether the ITAT was correct in ignoring the fact that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction were not satisfactorily explained by the assessee. The Tribunal's decision was based on established legal principles and precedents, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and the denial of the stay application. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue, upholding the Tribunal's decision regarding the addition of the unexplained sum in the books as Share Capital and Premium. The Court found no merit in the revenue's arguments and answered the substantial questions of law against the revenue.
|
