TRIMURTI AGENCIES PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 10(1),, KOLKATA

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 10.10.2025 for the AY 2012-13.

“ 5. The issue which falls for consideration is whether the learned Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -15, Kolkata [CIT(A)], dated 10th October, 2019, by which the CIT(A) affirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 30th March, 2015 under Section 143(3) of the Act. The learned Tribunal has elaborately considered the factual position and faulted the manner in which the assessment was completed by observing that it was a cryptic order without discussing the facts of the matter nor the submissions made by the assessee nor the documents produced by the assessee to prove the three factors, namely, identity, genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the subscribers. Learned Tribunal also found that though such documents were once again produced before the CIT(A), but the same were not referred to nor any defect or discrepancy was pointed out under the said documents. Apart from that, the learned Tribunal has also pointed out that there are factual mistakes by the CIT(A) while passing the order which are contrary to the conclusion arrived at by the Assessing Officer. Learned Tribunal took note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pr. CIT (Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. [2019] 103 taxmann.com 48/262 Taxman 74/412 ITR 161 (SC) and noted that the principles which were summed up in the said decision when a case is considered under Section 68 of the Act. After noting the said decision, the learned Tribunal examined the factual position and found that the initial burden casted upon the assessee has been discharged inasmuch as the assessee had produced the documents to prove the identity of the subscribers, the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the subscribers. If such was the factual position then in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the burden shifts on the department to prove the contrary. For doing so, it is necessary that the Assessing Officer should embark upon a fact finding exercise which, unfortunately, the Assessing Officer did not do in the instant case. The revenue cannot deny the fact that the order of assessment, as observed by the learned Tribual, is a cryptic order. 6. Thus, we find no question of law, much less substantial questions of law, arising for consideration in this appeal. 7. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed.” 6. Similarly, in case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Jealous Commercial (P.) Ltd. [2025] 180 taxmann.com 199 (Calcutta)/[2026] 308 Taxman 80 (Calcutta)[28-10-2025], the Hon'ble Court has held as under:-

“5. We have carefully perused the records and the findings of the learned Tribunal. It is observed that the respondent-assessee had placed a

Order pronounced on 28.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 28.04.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//

Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata