BRIJDHAM MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3), KOLKATA

ITA 1094/KOL/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Brijdham Mercantile Private Limited, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - NFAC, Delhi, concerning the Assessment Year 2012-13. The original assessment order was passed under sections 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where the Assessing Officer treated a purchase amount of Rs. 41,99,250 as bogus expenditure under section 69C, due to its association with a penny stock. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-response from the assessee. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not decide on the merits and restored the case for a comprehensive hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 46774 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-10-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus
• Section: 142(1); 143(2); 250; 69C

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'सी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजेश क ुमार, लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री प्रदीप क ुमार चौबे, न्याधयक सदस्य क े समक्ष Before SRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 1094/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Brijdham Mercantile Private Limited………………………………….Appellant [PAN: AADCB 5445 N] Vs. ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata........................................................Respondent Appearances: Assessee represented by: Miraj D. Shah, A/R. Department represented by: Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, JCIT. Date of concluding the hearing : September 25th, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : November 22nd, 2024 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2012-13 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi [in short ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 28.07.2023 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2019. 1. The brief facts of the case of the appellant are that the assessee filed its original return of income for the AY 2012-13 showing loss of Rs. 44,23,392/- . The case of the assessee was reopened on the ground that M/s. Banas I.T.A. No.: 1094/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Brijdham Mercantile Private Limited. Page 2 of 3 Finance Limited, a penny stock listed on BSE with scrip code amounting to Rs. 11,59,245/- during the FY 2011-12. Notices have been issued, in response to the said notice the assessee filed return of income for the said assessment year 26.04.2019. The assessee filed details in response to the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act and notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ld. 'AO') did not accept the submission of the assessee and treated the entire purchase amount of Rs. 41,99,250/- as bogus expenditure made by way of purchase of penny stock scrip of M/s. Banas Finance Limited and added it u/s 69C of the Act. The said order has been challenged by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on the ground that there was no response from the side of the assessee. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the present appeal has been preferred. 1.2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has challenged the impugned order on various grounds but in course of argument his submission is that ld. AO has added the said amount u/s 69C of the Act that is not at all applicable. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that ld. CIT(A) has passed the order behind his back as the assessee could not be able to file documents and submissions due to some unavoidable reasons. ld. Counsel for the assessee gave emphasis on the Section under which the order of the ld. AO has been passed. 1.3. on the contrary, ld. D/R supports the impugned order and submits that the assessee did not raise this question before the ld. CIT(A) as he did not make any response in spite of sufficient opportunity. 2. We have gone through the order of ld. AO and find that ld. AO has passed the order and added the amount u/s 69C of the Act. We further find that before the ld. CIT(A) the order was not passed on merit, rather it has been passed in limine on account of non-response from the side of the assessee. I.T.A. No.: 1094/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Brijdham Mercantile Private Limited. Page 3 of 3 3. Keeping in view the fact, that the order has not been passed on merit, by the CIT(A), we are in this view that assessee has to place his entire arguments such as legal as well as factual before the ld. CIT(A), and ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass order after hearing the case of the assessee on legal matter as well as on factual aspects. Accordingly the case is restored in the file of ld. CIT(A) by setting aside the impugned order. The assessee is directed to place his all material before the ld. CIT(A). 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22nd November, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 22.11.2024 Bidhan (P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Brijdham Mercantile Private Limited, 23A Netaji Subhash Road, 8th Floor, Room No 4, Dalhousie, Howrah, West Bengal, 700001. 2. ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. 6. Guard File. //True copy // By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata "