ANJAN MAJUMDAR,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 25(1),, KOLKATA

That the Addition made by Ld. Assessing Officer were bad in Law and not based on Documents provided by your humble assessee. Further the data as available on the Income Tax Portal in regard to the Lender, being the Wife of assessee were also not considered or analyzed properly.

That the Ld CIT (A) merely accepted the incorrect analysis of Ld Assessing Officer and did not consider the facts of the matters at hand. The Loan by Wife to Husband need not be repaid on a consistent or regular basis.

That both the Assessing Authorities claimed that the "Balance Sheet filed by Mrs. Tapasi Majumdar on the Income Tax Portal did not reflect such Loan to your assessee " is basically incorrect since no Balance Sheet had been filed on the Income Tax Portal because the said return was filed in Form 2 which does not have any such facility of providing Balance Sheet details.

That the above Original Assessment and Assessment of Ld CIT (A) suffer from defects of incorrect facts and therefore incorrect decisions.

That the above addition is bad in law since it is based in incorrect facts as determined by Ld. Assessing Officer.

That the Assessment made by Ld. CIT (A) needs to be set aside and Assessment be made based on facts and considering the said matter in its correct perspective keeping in mind the close relations between your assessee and such lender who is his wife and who is filing her separate returns nor a long period of time.

Your assessee craves leave to add, alter or modify any other grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal"

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the return of income for AY 2014-15 on 18.11.2017 declaring the total income at ₹8,37,790/-. The Assessing Officer [Ld. 'AO'] observed that the assessee had shown a loan of ₹53,50,000/- from his wife, Smt. Tapasi Majumdar, which was not reflected in the downloaded return and balance sheet of the lender. In the absence of the reply to the show-cause notice, the Ld. AO added the entire amount of ₹53,50,000/- to the total income of the assessee and framed the assessment assessing the total income at ₹61,87,790/- u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted the lender's balance sheet, ITR, and loan confirmation, but the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) observed that the loan was not commensurate with the lender's returned income and no repayment was made, therefore, the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the lender. Accordingly, the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) confirmed the action of the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide his findings as under:

Decision:- In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere with the assessment order passed by the AO. The appellant has not been able to prove creditworthiness of lender and genuineness of the transaction. Mere establishment of identity does not validate the transaction. As for the contention of not getting proper time, it is clearly mentioned in the assessment order that no response was made, nor anybody attended against the notices issued u/s 143(2) and 142(1). The ITR was filed on 18.11.2017, leaving very little time for the AO to complete the proceedings. Even in the appellant proceedings, the non-compliance continued from 2020 to 2024 and response was made in 2025 only and same reply was repeated despite getting further opportunities. Therefore, the ground of appeal is not found maintainable, and the appeal is dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed."

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined.

The Ld. AR contended that the assessment was reopened on the ground of receipt of loan from the wife of the assessee to the tune of ₹53,50,000/-. It was stated that the assessee is a labour contractor and supplies labour to different sites. It was stated that the assessment order is ex parte, no reply was filed by the assessee yet it is mentioned in the assessment order that the case was discussed and heard. It was submitted that the same assessing officer accepted the return of income for assessment year 2015-16 vide order dated 18/12/2017. The assessee requested for admission of additional evidence being the bank statement of the assessee for assessment year 2014-15, bank statement of Tapasi Majumdar for A.Y. 2014-15. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be upheld as the loan confirmation does not mention the date nor the capacity of the lender to advance the loan. The Ld. AR further submitted that there was no such transaction during this year for this amount and requested that one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee to make the submission as the ITR of the wife had no option to upload the balance sheet. We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). In the interest of justice and fair play it was considered by the Bench that the request of the assessee to set aside the case before the Ld. AO may be allowed so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter to the Ld. AO for making the assessment de novo. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission he wants to make in support of his grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in the appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.