SWAPAN BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 61,, KOLKATA

ITA 2413/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 September 2026AY 2015-20167 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the case required proper verification by the Assessing Officer (AO). It noted that the NFAC had dismissed the assessee's appeal concerning the disallowance of investment fees of Rs. 1,80,35,090 (USD 28,986) incurred outside India for earning interest and dividend income. The assessee claimed these fees were properly claimed as per US tax returns. The Tribunal observed that similar investment fees had been allowed as a deduction in AY 2012-13 and AY 2017-18, and the CIT(A) had allowed investment fees of Rs. 13,22,200 for AY 2014-15. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remit the appeal back to the file of the AO with a direction to pass an order after reviewing the assessee's submissions and documentary evidence for AYs 2012-13, 2017-18, and 2014-15, as the assessee had received relief on similar issues in those years. The operative direction was to set aside the order of the lower authority and allow the appeal for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Swapan Bhattacharya, filed his income tax return for Assessment Year 2015-16 declaring an income of Rs. 1,90,14,550, later revised to Rs. 3,08,57,050. His case was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer (AO) made several additions, including disallowing long-term capital loss and brought forward losses from both India and outside India, totaling Rs. 3,42,201, Rs. 4,231, Rs. 11,80,645, Rs. 5,82,441, and Rs. 1,75,336. The assessee appealed to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The NFAC partly allowed the appeal, granting relief on most issues but dismissing the appeal concerning the disallowance of investment fees of Rs. 1,80,35,090 incurred outside India.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal had to decide if the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in disallowing investment fees of Rs. 1,80,35,090 incurred by the assessee outside India for earning income in the USA, as per Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the investment fees should be allowed, citing that similar claims were accepted by the Assessing Officers in earlier assessment years (2012-13 and 2017-18) and by the CIT(A) for AY 2014-15. The assessee sought a remittance of the issue back to the AO for fresh verification, submitting documentary evidence from US tax returns and assessment orders from other years. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) supported the impugned order but did not object to remitting the appeal to the AO for proper verification in light of the assessee's submissions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 142(1),Section 37

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 01.09.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed under Section 143(3) of the Assessment Year 2015-16 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2.

The brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee here in after appellant filed his ITR for the concerned AY declaring Total Income

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →