SARITA RATHI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-37, KOL, KOLKATA

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Assessing Officer (‘the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)' where an appeal is fled before the Tribunal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)) erred in adding without referring the submission on 10.03.2023”.

The Appellant prays that the addition / disallowance of Rs.107917|- that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned C.I.T(A) has erred in adding a sum of on account of infructuous interest claim u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is untoward unlawful and liable to be deleted.

For that on the facts and circumstances of the case the aforesaid addition made by learned C.I.T(A) should not have been made as a reply is not considered which was sought in the Notice U/s 250 vide DIN: ITBANFAC/F/APL 1/2022-23/1050058705(1) dated 23.02.2023 and the last date of submissions may be furnished on or before 10.03.2023 and the same was replied on 10.03.2023 at 1:41 pm and as per ANNEXURE specified queries to upload bank statement of MANOJ DIGGA, SHYAMAL DAS AND SUPRIYA ENTERPRISES WHERE THE PAYMENT IS REFLECTED. 5. "The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and/ or withdraw any or all the above grounds of Appeal

The ld. counsel has brought our attention to para 3.5 of the impugned order of the CIT(A) to submit that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition in respect of four parties observing that the assessee has not furnished the relevant evidences including bank statements to prove the creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that Assessment year: 2016-17 Sarita Rathi all the relevant evidences relating to the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction including bank statements were duly furnished before the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer failed to properly appreciate the same. The ld. counsel further referring to the paper-book has submitted that even the ld. CIT(A) has also failed to take note of the evidences furnished by the assessee while confirming the aforesaid additions in respect of four parties.

The ld. DR, on the other hand, has submitted that since the assessee could not furnish the relevant bank statements and other documents, therefore, the lower authorities were justified in making the impugned additions.

After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that the relevant evidences furnished by the assessee have not been discussed by the CIT(A) in the impugned order. The impugned order of the CIT(A) is, therefore, set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) to consider the evidences and explanations furnished by the assessee and thereafter to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 1st November, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- [डॉ�टर मनीष बोरड /Dr. Manish Borad] [संजय गग� /Sanjay Garg] लेखा सद�य /Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य /Judicial Member Dated: 01.11.2023. RS