What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to disprove the genuineness of the loans taken by the assessee, despite multiple opportunities and a failed remand report. The evidence produced by the assessee was not dislodged.

The assessee appealed against an addition of Rs. 41,22,897. The CIT(A) had reduced the addition to Rs. 26,85,935. The Tribunal had previously restored the issue to the CIT(A), but the High Court directed the Tribunal to decide on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of loans is sustainable when the revenue fails to disprove the genuineness of the transactions.

Sarita Rathi vs ACIT | ITAT Kolkata 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhary, Advocate

For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, CIT-DR

Hearing: 12.05.2026Pronounced: 12.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.415/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17

Sarita Rathi ACIT, Circle-37, Kolkata

Block-B, 336 Canal Street, Vs Shree Bhumi Lake Town, Kol- 700048. (PAN: ADSPR6934R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Soumitra Choudhary, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Sallong Yaden, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 12.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 12.05.2026

ORDER 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 ‘PCIT’] in appeal no.CIT(A), Kolkata-11/10147/2018-19 dated 10.03.2023.

Shri Soumitra Choudhary, Advocate, represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sallong Yaden, DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

The addition in this appeal is only to the tune of Rs.41,22,897/- originally made in the assessment order. The same was the subject

ITA No.415/Kol/2023 matter of the appeals and deletions have been done by the ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the additions have been reduced to Rs.26,85,935/-. The Tribunal had earlier heard this appeal and vide an order dated 01.11.2023 restored the issues to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for reconsidering the evidences and explanations filed by the assessee. The assessee had carried the matter before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in ITAT/149/2023 vide an order dated 03.05.2024 had directed the Tribunal is well within its jurisdiction to examine the evidences as the same were before the Tribunal and if necessary call for a remand report and can decide the matter on merits instead of remanding the matter to the appellate authority. Consequent to the direction of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, this Tribunal had called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer on 13.10.2025 vide an order-sheet recording as follows:

ITA No.415/Kol/2023

The remand report was to be provided by 14.11.2025, the Assessing Officer issued a remand report on 13.01.2026 which reads as follows:

ITA No.415/Kol/2023

ITA No.415/Kol/2023 5. As the remand report had not considered the evidences produced by the assessee, the ld. CIT-DR was directed to call for a proper remand report for proper verification of the evidences. This was done as per direction given on 07.01.2026. The appeal has been posted repeatedly and no remand report has been given from the revenue. Today, the ld. CIT-DR has placed before us a letter addressed by the Assessing Officer which reads as follows:

A perusal of the letter itself shows that the revenue admittedly is not interested in providing any justice to the assessee nor the revenue 6

ITA No.415/Kol/2023

has been able to provide a proper remand report after considering the evidences. The assessee has filed details of the loans taken from four persons which reads as follows:

The impugned assessment year is 2016-17. The evidences produced clearly show that the loans received during the year is only Rs.22,99,990/-, the balances are of opening balances. The revenue has not able to dispute nor disprove this fact that the transactions have been continued for multiple years which clearly shows that the transactions should be genuine. This being so, as the revenue has miserably failed to 7

ITA No.415/Kol/2023

dislodge the evidences produced by the assessee nor has the revenue been able to provide a proper remand report though substantial number of opportunities have been granted to the revenue, considering the evidences produced by the assessee which have not been disproved, the addition as made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) stands deleted.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12/05/2026. Sd/- Sd/- [Laxmi Prasad Sahu] [George Mathan] लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/Judicial Member

Dated: 12/05/2026 RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent – 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

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

SARITA RATHI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-37, KOL, KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments