ITAT held that share capital additions cannot rest on an inspector’s report not shared with the assessee. Matter remanded for fresh examination in line with natural justice.
Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) ITAT Kolkata Deletes ₹21.39 Cr Section 68 Addition—Share Capital & Premium Cannot Be Added Solely for Non-Appearance of Investors The Kolkata Bench of the ITAT allowed the appeal of Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2008-09 and deleted the addition of ₹21.39 crore made under section 68 […]
The issue was whether reassessment notices issued after the extended period under TOLA were valid. The Tribunal held that post–Rajeev Bansal, notices beyond the surviving limitation are time-barred and void.
The Tribunal condoned a 506-day delay after accepting that the appeal was filed only when heavy penalty exposure created prosecution risk. The key takeaway is that bona fide reliance on legal advice and later developments can constitute sufficient cause for condonation.
The Tribunal examined whether prior approval under Section 153D was granted after due application of mind. It held that mechanical and routine approval invalidates the assessment, rendering the search assessment void.
The reassessment was challenged for lacking approval from the correct authority under Section 151 after three years. The Tribunal held that sanction by an incorrect authority vitiates jurisdiction, rendering the reassessment void.
The issue was whether the entire purchase amount could be added under Section 69C based solely on an entry-operator’s denial. The Tribunal ruled that since sales were accepted and books not rejected, only a 10% estimated disallowance was justified.
The issue was whether a transfer pricing adjustment could survive when based solely on DRI allegations later dropped. The Tribunal held that once customs authorities exonerated the assessee, the TP adjustment had no foundation and was rightly deleted.
The Tribunal upheld addition of demonetisation cash deposits after rejecting the claim that funds came from old cash withdrawals. Mere assertion of past withdrawals, without evidence of cash retention, was held insufficient.
The Tribunal found the appellate order mechanical where Rule 46A evidence was filed but not examined. The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication after proper verification.
