KUNDIL REALITY PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANAJI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 72/PAN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 May 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issues on merits to the AO for denovo adjudication, directing the assessee to provide detailed bank entries and an affidavit. The penalty proceedings were also restored to the AO as consequential to the quantum additions.

What were the facts?

The assessee company, Kundil Reality Private Limited, did not file its return of income for AY 2018-19. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings based on alleged accommodation entries with M/s. Kangan Jewels Pvt Ltd and made additions for debit and credit transactions.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO erred in making additions based on alleged accommodation entries without proper verification, and whether the consequential penalty was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 271AA,Section 271AAC(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI

Before: HON’BLE MANISH BORAD & HON’BLE PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Respondent: Shri Jeetendra Kumar - CIT, DR

आदेश / ORDER

PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeals at the instance of assessee ISdirected against the different orders Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) evenly dated 21.11.2025 pertain to A.Y 2018-19 arising out of the common assessment order framed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 21.03.2023.

2.

The only grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO making addition at Rs. 3,63,57,927/- and also challenged the levy of penalty u/s 271AA of the Act at Rs. 28,08,649/-.

ITA 72 & 73/PAN/2026 KUNDIL REALITY PRIVATE LIMITED 3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the bank statement of the assessee held with HDFC bank ltd., submitted that assessee company has never entered into any transaction with M/s. Kangan Jewels Pvt Ltd as alleged by ld. AO. He submitted that ld. AO has grossly erred in making separate additions for debit and credit transactions at Rs. 1,82,03,295/- and Rs. 1,81,54,634/-. He therefore prayed that for necessary verification of the records that the assessee has not entered into any traction with Kangan Jewels Pvt Ltd during the year under consideration, the issue on merits may please be restored to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). He further submitted that the penalty proceedings being consequential to the quantum additions may also be restored to the file of the ld. JAO.

4.

On the other hand, ld. DR supporting the order of ld. CIT(A) submitted that the assessee has never represented before both the lower authorities.

5.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. We observe that assessee is a private limited company and did not file of return of income for A.Y 2018-19. Based on the information about the alleged transactions of the assessee with M/s. Kangan Jewels Pvt Ltd, which is allegedly engaged in providing accommodation entries, ld. AO initiated the reassessment proceedings issuing valid notice u/s 148 of the Act. However, due to non compliance by the assessee ld. AO passed best judgment assessment and as per the information available with the department, the addition has been made separately for the debit as well as credit transactions allegedly entered between the assessee and M/s. Kangan Jewels Pvt Ltd.

6.

Under these given facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to restore the issues raised on merits to the file

ITA 72 & 73/PAN/2026 KUNDIL REALITY PRIVATE LIMITED of ld. JAO for denovo adjudication and also to examine the details to be filed by assessee about entries appearing in HDFC bank account. We note that the complete details of the entries are not discernable from the bank statement and entry wise details with the name of the party to which cheque has been cleared or received needs to be placed before ld. JAO for necessary verification. We also direct the assessee to file affidavit declaring that firstly assessee has not entered into any transaction with M/s. Kangan Jewels Pvt Ltd and secondly no bank account other than bank account held with HDFC (copy of which is provided by this Tribunal) is held by assessee. Ld. JAO shall decide the issue denovo in light of the directions given hereinabove. Needless to mention that the ld. JAO shall afford reasonable and proper opportunity to the assessee. Further, we direct the assessee to remain cooperative in furnishing the details called for by the ld. AO. Finding of ld. CIT(A) is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on quantum addition in ITA No. 72/Pan/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

ITA No. 73/Pan/2026 relates to levy of penalty u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act and the same being consequential to the quantum addition, also deserves to be restored to the file of ld. JAO for necessary adjudication to be carried out after conclusion of the proceedings relating to quantum addition. Accordingly grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 73/Pan/2026 are also allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21.05.2026. Sd/- Sd/- PAVAN KUMAR GADALE MANISH BORAD JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Panaji/Pune Dated: 21.05.2026

ITA 72 & 73/PAN/2026 KUNDIL REALITY PRIVATE LIMITED

Digitally signed by Satish Kumar Madishetty Satish Kumar Madishetty Date: 2026.05.26 14:59:48 +05'30'

Copy to:

KUNDIL REALITY PRIVATE LIMITED, 610 6TH FLOOR SHIV TOWER, 1 PANAJI-403001, GOA

INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2 WARD 1 (1) AAYKAR BHAVAN, PANAJI-403001, GOA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, PANAJI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →