ANUPAMA AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITSSA 2/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 August 2025AY 2013-145 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's plea for remittance was valid. It noted that the AO had not provided the assessee with copies of statements from brokers, directors, and entry operators, despite requests. The assessee had also requested an opportunity to cross-examine these individuals to ascertain the truth. Citing a coordinate bench's decision in *Amit Agarawl & ors.* (ITA No. 2592/Kol/2019), which dealt with a similar issue of non-supply of material gathered by the AO and lack of effective opportunity for cross-examination under Section 142(3) read with Section 142(2), the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the AO. The AO was directed to make available the gathered material and provide a reasonable opportunity for hearing and cross-examination to the assessee before completing the assessment in accordance with the law. Consequently, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The appeals by Anupama Agarwal and Dinesh Agarwal (assessees) are against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -26, Kolkata, for Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessees had filed their returns of income, which were processed. Subsequently, a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was conducted at the residential premises of the assessee. Following the search, a notice under Section 153A was issued, and assessments were completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A. The additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) included unexplained cash credit under Section 68 (Rs. 37,30,129/-) and unexplained expenditure under Section 69C (Rs. 18,650/-). The appeals before the CIT(A) were dismissed, leading to the present appeals before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh consideration, considering the AO's alleged non-compliance with the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and failure to provide an opportunity for cross-examination of entry providers, as argued by the assessee. The assessee contended that despite requests, copies of statements from brokers, directors, and entry operators were not provided, and an opportunity to cross-examine them was denied. The assessee relied on the decisions in *Amit Agarawl & ors.* and *Sajjan Agarwal*. 2. Whether the case is fit for remittance or fresh consideration, as argued by the revenue. The revenue opposed the assessee's contention, arguing that the AO and CIT(A) had considered the evidence and relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in *PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj*. The revenue contended that there was nothing in the order to warrant remittance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 139,Section 143(1),Section 143(3),Section 153A,Section 68,Section 69C,Section 142(2),Section 142(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “ए’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA श्री राजेश कुमार, लेखा सटस्य एवं श्री प्रदीप कुमार चौबे, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member &Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member] I.T.(S.S)A. No. 02/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Anupama Agarwal Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata

(PAN: AFKPA 8339 R) ) अपीलार्थी ( Respondent / प्रत्यर्थी Appellant / I.T.(S.S)A. No. 03/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dinesh Agarwal Vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Kolkata

(PAN: ADAPA 2647 L) ) अपीलार्थी ( Respondent / प्रत्यर्थी Appellant /

Date of Hearing / सुनवाई 17.07.2025 की यिथर्थ Date of Pronouncement/ 25.08.2025 आदेश उद्घोषणा की यिथर्थ For the assessee / Shri Sunil Surana, FCA यनर्ााररिी की ओर से

2 I.T.(S.S)A. Nos. 02 & 03/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Anupama Agarwal & Dinesh Agarwal For the revenue / राजस्व Shri Raja Sengupta, CITDR की ओर से

ORDER / आदेश Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM: These are the appeals preferred by the different assessees against the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), -26, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 13.11.2024 for AY 2013-14. Issues are common in both these appeals, hence taken up together for disposal by taking in ITA No. 03/Kol/2025 for Ay 2013-14 as a lead case.

2.

Brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income u/s 139 of the Act for AY 2013-14 disclosing total income of Rs. 60,56,777/- on 24.07.2013. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Consequent to search u/s 132 of the Act in the residential premises of the assessee at 96N, New Alipur, Block-E, Kolkata-700053 on 27.08.2014, notice u/s 153A was issued to the assessee and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act on 07.12.2016 with the following additions:

i) Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 : Rs. 37,30,129/-

ii) Unexplained expenditure u/s 69C : Rs. 18,650/-

3.

Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the assessee preferred an appeal before us.

4.

The Ld. A.R instead of arguing into the merit of the case has only prayed that the matter be remitted back to the file of AO as the AO in passing the assessment order did neither comply the SOP nor provided any opportunity to the assessee to cross- examine the entry providers. The Ld. A.R submits that in spite of several requests were

3 I.T.(S.S)A. Nos. 02 & 03/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Anupama Agarwal & Dinesh Agarwal made by the assessee to provide copies of statement given by the brokers, directors and/or entry operators, the same were not provided to the assessee. The Ld. A.R has prayed that the assessee has to give an opportunity to place his case with a direction to the AO to follow the SOP as well as permit the AR to cross-examine the entry operators being basis of the assessment order. He has relied the following decisions:

i) Amit Agarawl & ors. in ITA No. 2592/Kol/2019 dated 09.04.2024

ii) Sajjan Agarwal in ITA No. 2476/Kol/2019

He has also filed SOP before this Tribunal.

5.

Contrary to that the Ld. D.R vehemently opposes the contention of the Ld. A.R thereby submitting that there is nothing in the order to be inferred nor the case is fit to be remitted or fresh consideration as the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) has considered the evidence and judgment passed by the Hon’ble Calcutta High court in the case of PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj in [2022] 139 taxmann.com 352 (Cal).

6.

Upon hearing the submission and counsel of the respective parties, we have perused the impugned order and find that in spite of requests made by the assessee to provide the copies of statement given by the broker, directors and/or entry operators relied upon by the AO but the same were not provided to the assessee. It is also not in dispute that the assessee has also requested to allow an opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine to them so that the truth comes out. Since the learned AR has placed his reliance on the judicial pronouncement, hence firstly we have gone through the cited decision of the A.R and find that in ITA No. 2592/Kol/2019 for AY 2015-16 & Ors. dated 09.04.2024, the issue was same as of this case and the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench has discussed the case at length and thereafter held thus:

“13.1. Thus, in the context of the present case, our view as stated herein is confined to the non- supply of material gathered by the ld. AO from the enquiries conducted by him in the course of assessment and utilised for the purpose of assessment without complying with the mandatory statutory procedural requirement stated in section 142(3). In the present case before us, from the perusal of the impugned assessment order, as a matter of fact , it is noted that Ld. AO has not provided the effective opportunity of cross examination and other material relied upon for taking the adverse view. 13.2. Considering the above discussion in respect of provisions

4 I.T.(S.S)A. Nos. 02 & 03/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Anupama Agarwal & Dinesh Agarwal contained in sec. 142(3) read with sec. 142(2), we are inclined to consider the plea taken by the ld. Counsel to remit the matter back to the file of Ld. AO and direct the Ld. AO to make available the material gathered by him in the course of enquiry conducted in terms of sec. 142(2) and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as enunciated u/s. 142(3) of the Act along with effective opportunity of cross examination as requested several times by the assessee. Thereafter, Ld. AO may complete the assessment in accordance with the provisions of law. Accordingly, ground no. 3 taken by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 14. Since the matter has been remitted back to the file of Ld. AO in terms of above observations and finding, all other grounds taken by the assessee are rendered academic in nature and are, therefore, not adjudicated upon. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The above observations and finding apply mutatis mutandis all the other six appeals in this consolidated order.” 7. Keeping in view, the facts of the case as well as submission made by the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench, Kolkata as discussed above, we are inclined to remit the appeal of the assessee to the file of AO for fresh consideration after observing the discussion made above. The AO is directed to pass an order after considering the SOP as well as by giving an opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the entry operators.

8.

The issue raised in the appeal is similar to one as decided by us in IT(S.S)A No. 03/Kol/2025 for AY 2013-14. Therefore, our decision in IT(S.S)A No. 02/Kol/2025 for AY 2013-14 would mutatis mutandis, apply to this appeal as well. Accordingly, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, both the appeals of the different assessees are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 25th August, 2025

Sd/- Sd/-

(Rajesh Kumar/राजेश कुमार) (Pradip Kumar Choubey /प्रदीप कुमार चौबे) Accountant Member/लेखा सदस्य Judicial Member/न्याययक सदस्य Dated: 25th August, 2025 SM, Sr. PS

5 I.T.(S.S)A. Nos. 02 & 03/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Anupama Agarwal & Dinesh Agarwal

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- Anupama Agarwal and Dinesh Agarwal, both are residing at 79, Nalini Ranjan Avenue, New Alipore, Kolkata- 700053 2. Respondent – DCIT, Central Circle- 2 (1), Kolkata 3. Ld. CIT(A)- 26, Kolkata 4. Ld. PCIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail)

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →