M/S. KINGFISHER SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘बी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA �ी संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य एवं �ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद�य के सम� Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A No.365/Kol/2022 Assessment year: 2012-13 M/s Kingfisher Suppliers Pvt. Ltd.........................................………...…..…Appellant Flat-BL-2, Haldiram Enclave, VIP Road, Kolkata-700052. [PAN: AADCK9597N] vs. ITO, Ward-4(4), Kolkata........................................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Rajeev Kumar, AR, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri P. P Barman, Addl. CIT-DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : January 19, 2023 Date of pronouncing the order : February 22, 2023 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 26.04.2022 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The assessee, in this appeal, has contested the action of the lower authorities in making impugned addition of Rs.72,00,000/- in respect of unexplained money received by the assessee from one ‘Shivanand Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd.’ holding that the same to unexplained cash credit invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act.

I.T.A No.365/Kol/2022 Assessment year: 2012-13 M/s Kingfisher Suppliers Pvt. Ltd 3. At the outset, the ld. AR of the assessee has explained that it was submitted before the Assessing Officer that the assessee did not receive any alleged sum from Shivanand Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd. However, the Assessing Officer totally ignored the aforesaid contention of the assessee. However, during the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), the assessee could not appear as the counsel for the assessee, Shri Naresh Kumar Agarwal had expired on July 2020 and the file of the assessee could not be traced from his office. The ld. counsel has further relied upon the bank statement of the assessee to submit that the assessee did not receive any such sum from Shivanand Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd. The ld. counsel, therefore, has submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of the CIT(A) to thoroughly examine the contention of the assessee. 4. In view of the above, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal of the assessee afresh. Needless to say that the CIT(A) will give proper opportunity to the assessee to present its case and thereafter to pass a speaking order in respect of the contention 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 22nd February, 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: 22.02.2023. RS

I.T.A No.365/Kol/2022 Assessment year: 2012-13 M/s Kingfisher Suppliers Pvt. Ltd

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. M/s Kingfisher Suppliers Pvt. Ltd 2. ITO, Ward-4(4), Kolkata 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches