OJASWINI RETAILERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA

The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,25,000/-, which was made by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 29.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.1,710/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment. Ld. Assessing Officer has observed that the assessee has received a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-, which is discernable from Kotak Mahindra Bank accounts. He issued a show-cause notice inviting the explanation of the assessee for this credit in its accounts. The assessee has submitted that it has received this money from Shri Sujash Gupta Rs.25,000/- and Jolly Sales (P) Limited Rs.1,00,000/-. The assessee has submitted the complete details, but the ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee and he made an addition of Rs.1,25,000/-. Dissatisfied with the action of the ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal and it again submitted as under:- “Notwithstanding the above, we state that the assessee had on Date: 05.04.2021 filed the following information suo moto, as AO was just beating around the bush,

Ojaswini Retailers Pvt. Limited perhaps acting on Borrowed information, without having his own independent finding on the basis of information received from investigation wing:- Your information Our books and explanation dates Amount Nature 15.04.2012 25,000 28.03.2012 25,000 received in last FY 2011-12 sent in a clearing Cheque received from our director Mr. Sujash Gupta. 12.06.2012, 1,00,000 12 06 2012 1,00,000 Amount received from Jolly Sales (P) Ltd. Against sale of shares of Izone Marketing (P) Ltd. (Investment of Last FY 2011-12) While framing the assessment, the AO added the amounts as unexplained cash credits. The AO for Rs 25.000 deposit did not doubt the explanation of the assessee that said the cheque was received on 25.03.2013 from the director of the company. He just formed his decision for purported non-submission of detail of the nature of such receipt and cash book of an earlier year. The AO accepted that the assessee had furnished the ledger account of Mr. Sujash Gupta for FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14 have completed the details and nature of the transaction. The AO did not doubt the relationship of Mr. Sujash Gupta with the company. On the second deposit, the AO accepted that details of the transaction, supporting, and bank statements were furnished. The AO took another stand that no revenue is generated from the sale of shares for Rs. 1,00,000. For his stand for additions of Rs.25,000 and Rs. 1,00,000, the AO had not put the assessee on notice, before framing his decision. The AO framed the decision on the back of the assessee. The assessee is aggrieved by the addition made against the law as well as on facts.

The ld. 1st Appellate Authority though devoted eight pages but did not comprehensively examined the submissions of the assessee analytically. He affirmed the finding of the ld. Assessing Officer.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on May 23, 2023.