VIVEK TRACOM PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 5(1), , KOLKATA

आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, JM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.NFAC/2012-13/10071129 dated 23.01.2025. 2. Shri Sunil Surana, AR, represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Kallol Mistry, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

2 ITANo.407/Kol/2025 made the addition of Rs.11,30,000/-. It was the submission that on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-verification and re-adjudication. The ld. AR submits that the adjudication has been done wherein the Assessing Officer without providing the assessee any evidence in regard to the transaction, the Assessing Officer claimed that the assessee had transacted with M/s Apex Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. and has added the said amount of Rs.11,30,000/- as transaction with M/s Apex Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. which has been treated as unexplained income of the assessee. It was the submission that the addition is liable to be deleted. The assessee has claimed that the Assessing Officer has not provided evidence which was relied upon by the assessee. 4. The assessment records were called for vide order-sheet entry dated 04.05.26. The ld. Sr DR has produced the assessment details. It was submitted that bank account of the assessee shows that the assessee has received an amount of Rs.11,30,000/- from Rudraksha Dealer. It was submitted that the amount was exactly the same. It was fairly agreed by the ld. Sr. DR that there is no evidence available with the revenue to show that the transaction has been done with M/s Apex Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. It was the submission that the amount being the same as Rs.11,30,000/-, the

3 ITANo.407/Kol/2025 difference in the name should not be considered and the addition should be confirmed. 4. I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case clearly shows that the bank account of the assessee shows the transaction of Rs.11,30,000/- with Rudraksha Dealer. The reopening in the case of the assessee is on the ground that the assessee has made transaction with M/s Apex Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. The addition in the assessment order is also on the ground that the assessee had transacted with M/s Apex Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. The revenue has not been able to provide any details to show that the assessee has done transaction with M/s Apex Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. This being so, as the very foundation of the reopening has been done, and the addition made, without any live-link on any evidences available with the revenue, the addition as made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) stands deleted. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07/05/2026.

Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) न्यधनयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 07/05/2026 RS

4 ITANo.407/Kol/2025

आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant- 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent- 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, कोलकाता / DR, 5. ITAT, Kolkata गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6.

सत्यापपत प्रतत //True Copy// आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER,

(Assistant Registrar) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata