TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Department's Appeal Condoned & Adjudicated; Tribunal Rules on Undisclosed Income, Bogus Purchases</h1> <h3>Divine Alloys & Power Co. Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income - tax, Circle-3 (1), Kolkata (Vice Versa)</h3> Divine Alloys & Power Co. Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income - tax, Circle-3 (1), Kolkata (Vice Versa) - TMI Issues Involved:1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the department.2. Adjudication of the appeal ex parte due to the absence of the assessee.3. Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and its effect on the proceedings.4. Addition of share application/allotment money as undisclosed income under section 68.5. Addition towards bogus purchases.6. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Summary:Condonation of Delay:The department's appeal had a brief delay of three days due to administrative procedures. The delay was condoned, and the appeal was taken up for adjudication.Ex Parte Adjudication:The appeal was called for hearing, but no one represented the assessee, and no adjournment application was filed. The Tribunal proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex parte after hearing the Department's representative and considering the available material.Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP):The assessee had entered CIRP under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and a moratorium was in effect from 07.03.2019. Despite this, there was no update on the Resolution Plan or liquidation order. The Tribunal noted the unprofessional approach of the Resolution Professional and decided to adjudicate the matter based on the available record.Addition under Section 68:The assessee's appeal contested the addition of Rs. 19,10,96,000/- as undisclosed income under section 68. The Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] found that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the share capital transactions and the creditworthiness of the investors. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the assessee's appeal.Addition towards Bogus Purchases:The revenue's appeal challenged the deletion of the addition towards bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 198,01,40,620/-. The AO had added the amount based on information from a survey indicating bogus transactions. The CIT(A) had given relief to the assessee based on documentary evidence, audited books, and banking transactions. However, the Tribunal noted the lack of detailed investigations and quantitative analysis of stock records and upheld the AO's addition, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order.Disallowance under Section 14A:The revenue's appeal also contested the deletion of Rs. 20,18,578/- disallowed under section 14A. The AO had made the addition based on Rule 8D, but the CIT(A) deleted it, noting that the assessee had not earned any exempt income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding, relying on judicial precedents that no disallowance is required in the absence of exempt income.Conclusion:The appeal of the assessee was dismissed, and the revenue's appeal was partly allowed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 20th June 2023.
TaxTMI 