TRANSWAY INTERNATIONAL,KOLKATA vs. A.O./I.T.O., WARD - 50(1), KOLKATA

FOR that appeal order dtd.07.06.2024 passed u/s.250 in summary manner is wrong, unjustified and passed without considering/discussing the submission of the Appellant-firm, appears to be predetermined hence bad-in-law and liable to be quashed.

FOR that the Ld. CIT(Appeal) was wrong and unjustified in ignoring and/or not discussing the point that the Appellant-firm did not receive the alleged notice u/s. 148 dtd.25.03.2021. 3. FOR that the Ld. CIT(Appeal) was wrong and unjustified in ignoring and/or not discussing the point that as per annexure to notice u/s.142(1)

FOR that the Ld. CIT(Appeal) was wrong and unjustified in ignoring and/or not discussing the issue of service of alleged notice u/s.148 dtd.25.03.2021 even though the copy of "Report of Affixation" furnished by the Ld. A.O. was furnished before the Ld. CIT (Appeal).

FOR that the Ld. CIT(Appeal) was wrong and unjustified in ignoring and/or not discussing the defects pointed out in "Report of Affixation" in respect of service of alleged notice u/s 148 dtd.25.03.2021. 6. FOR that the Ld. CIT(Appeal) was wrong and unjustified in ignoring and/or not discussing the point that alleged notice u/s.148 dtd.25.03.2021 was issued by the I.T.O. Ward-6(1), Kolkata whereas order u/s.147/144 dtd.31.03.2022 was passed by the I.T.O. Ward-50(1), Kolkata whereas intimation and/or order, if any, in respect of change of Juri iction was not communicated to the Appellant-firm.

FOR that the Ld. CIT (Appeal) was wrong and unjustified in ignoring and/or not discussing the point that details of information regarding Import of alleged Rs.35,16,46,234/- was not furnished to the Appellant-firm in spite of specific request made by the Appellant-firm vide letter dtd.26.03.2022 in the course of reassessment proceedings.

FOR that the Ld. CIT(Appeal) was wrong and unjustified in confirming the addition of Rs.35,16,46,234/- made u/s.69 whereas as per their record alleged payment of import duty was of Rs. 17,58,23,117/-.

FOR that the Ld. CIT(Appeal) was wrong and unjustified in ignoring the fact that when as per record of Ld. A.O. alleged payment of import duty was of Rs. 17,58,23,117/- and the addition was made of different amount of Rs.35,16,46,234/- without any corroborative material, hence the order is bad-in-law and liable to be cancelled.

FOR that the Ld. CIT(Appeal) was wrong and unjustified in ignoring and/or not discussing the point that the Appellant-firm was not furnished the photocopies of reasons recorded for reopening and photocopy of sanction/approval letter of competent authority to reopen the assessment and other documents even though specific request was made to Ld. A.O. by letters dtd.06.04.2024 and 03.05.2024. 11. FOR that the appellant craves leave to alter, amend, modify any of the grounds and/or take additional grounds before or at the time of hearing of this appeal."

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed the return of income for the AY 2015-16. Based on information that the assessee had paid huge customs duty in respect of import purchases amounting to ₹35,16,46,234/- and deposited cash amounting to ₹7,50,000/- in a bank account during the FY 2014-15, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') initiated reassessment proceedings and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 25.03.2021. As the assessee failed to submit the return of income and did not comply with the subsequent notices u/s 142(1) of the Act, the Ld. AO passed an ex parte assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and in the absence of any explanation or documentary evidence, he treated the entire import amount of ₹35,16,46,234/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act, determining the total income of the assessee at ₹35,16,46,234/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings, observing that the assessee had not filed the return of income voluntarily and tangible material existed for reopening. On the merits of the addition, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee had failed to submit any material or additional evidence during the appeal to substantiate its grounds or discharge the onus of establishing the genuineness of the transactions and the source of payment. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee could not prove or rebut the findings of the Ld. AO with cogent evidence despite multiple opportunities, hence, he found no reason to interfere with the assessment order and upheld the addition of ₹35,16,46,234/- as unexplained investment, confirmed the ITA No(s). 1627/KOL/2024 Assessment Year(s) 2015-16 assessment order of the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The assessee has raised several grounds including ground relating to the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 25.03.2021 stating that the assessee had never received the alleged notice. Since this relates to factual verification of the case, the Bench was of the view that in the interest of justice and fair play another opportunity may be allowed to the assessee.

The Ld. DR requested that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be confirmed.

We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). After examining the facts of the case and the law, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal to him for disposal of the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee on merits by passing a speaking order after considering the various grounds raised by the assessee including the legal grounds and after calling for a remand report from the Ld. AO on the factual aspects raised including the non-service of the notice. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 shall also be followed and an opportunity of being heard may be ITA No(s). 1627/KOL/2024 Assessment Year(s) 2015-16 provided to the Ld. AO, if required. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in the appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20th July, 2026. [Yogesh Kumar US] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 20.07.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)

CIT-

CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

Guard File. //// By order