Introduction: In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata, upheld an addition made by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) in the case of Timely Commercial Pvt. Ltd. The decision was centered on the company’s inability to clarify a large share premium received, ultimately leading to a dismissal of the appeal by the assessee.
Analysis: The ITAT ruling came after Timely Commercial failed to explain a significant share premium that was received, amounting to Rs. 18,98,07,000. The company was also notably absent in several hearings, leading to the ITAT making an ex parte judgement based on the material available. The company’s failure to satisfactorily comply with the ITO’s request for details and explanation regarding the share capital raised, as well as its casual conduct during the appeal process, resulted in the decision going against them.
The case took a particularly interesting turn due to the delay of 565 days in filing the appeal, a fact not explained by the assessee. The noticeable gap between the date of the order by CIT(A) and its receipt by the assessee, and the lack of representation from the assessee at all stages of the litigation further complicated the situation.
Conclusion: The case of Timely Commercial Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO highlights the importance of prompt compliance and proactive engagement during tax-related litigations. The absence of representation and failure to explain a large share premium led to the dismissal of the appeal, reinforcing the need for assessees to be thorough and timely in their tax responsibilities. This case serves as a crucial reminder for companies to maintain accurate and transparent records to prevent potential tax issues in the future.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT KOLKATA
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-2, Kolkata vide Appeal No. 655/CIT(A)-2/15-16 dated 19.07.2017 passed against the assessment order by ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata u/s.144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 12.03.2015 for AY 2012-13.
2. There is a delay of 565 days in filing the present appeal. The impugned order by Ld. CIT(A) is dated 19.07.2017 which is claimed to have been received on 05.02.2019 as mentioned in Form 36. There is no petition for condonation of delay furnished by the assessee to explain the delay of 565 days in filing the present appeal as well as to explain the lapse of time in respect of passing of order by the Ld. CIT(A) and receipt thereof. Assessee has filed Form 36 before the Tribunal on 05.04.2019. Also, before us none represented the assessee. In the past, this matter has been listed on several occasions and on certain occasions it was attended by either Advocate Shri Somnath Ghosh or his office staff, seeking adjournments. On one of the occasions, adjournment was sought to file paper book but no such paper book has been filed till the last hearing. It is also noted that in the last hearing fixed on 27.03.2023, none appeared to represent the assessee. On that date, the matter was adjourned to 20.06.2023 on which also none appeared to represent the assessee. Notices have not been returned unserved. We also noted that the appeal is of the year 2019. Considering the overall factual matrix, we find it proper to take it up for adjudication ex parte qua the assessee with the assistance of Ld. CIT, DR, based on material available on record.
3. The impugned assessment order is dated 12.03.2015, passed u/s. 144 of the Act. From the said order, we note that assessee filed its return of income on 29.09.2012, reporting total income of Rs.14,020/-. Case was selected for scrutiny assessment for the reason “large share premium received”. Ld. AO noted that assessee has raised share capital including share premium of Rs.18,98,07,000/- and called for details and explanation. Ld. AO also issued notice u/s. 131 on the assessee for personal attendance of the Principal Officer/Director of the assessee as well as the investors to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions, undertaken by them. Since compliance was not made to the satisfaction of Ld. AO, addition was made in this respect and assessment was completed u/s. 144 of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
3.1. During the first appellate proceeding, e-notices were issued for hearing the matter, the details of hearings fixed by the Ld. CIT(A) along with remarks is tabulated as under:
4. Since nothing additional was submitted nor anything was represented before the Ld. CIT(A), appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
5. Before us also, as already noted above, we find that conduct of the assessee is evidently casual as there is a delay of 565 days in filing the present appeal which is not backed up by any petition for condonation of delay. Also, there is a huge gap between the date of order of Ld. CIT(A) and its receipt by the assessee as noted above. At all the stages, right from Ld. AO to Ld. CIT(A) and now before us, there has not been any representation by the assessee or its authorised representative. It is important to note that the assessee is a legal entity which must be having all the para-pharnelia to meet the regulatory and statutory compliance requirement, more so, when assessee itself is pursuing the litigation before various authorities. In the present case before us, conduct of the assessee as observed above persuades us to uphold the addition made by the Ld. AO. Accordingly, grounds taken by the assessee challenging the addition of Rs.18,98,01,000/- on account of share application money along with premium are dismissed.
6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd June, 2023.