INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EQUIPMENT BARTER PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the Ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as Ld.
'CIT(A)']-NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2013-14 dated 29.09.2023, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s.
144B of the Act, dated 29.03.2022. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the appeal was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR.
1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the Revenue is barred by limitation by 233 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the Revenue stating as under:
I.T.A. No.: 1560/KOL/2024
Assessment Year: 2013-14
Equipment Barter Private Limited.
Date
Particulars
Remarks for delay appeal
29.09.2023
CIT(A) order passed
0 days
29.09.2023
Received online
0 days
30.09.2023
to 07.10.2023
Tracing record
08 days
08.10.2023
to 12.10.2023
Drafting ASR
05 days
13.10.2023
ASR Submitted to PCIT-2 through
AddL CIT, R-11/Kol
-
30.06.2024
Returned Back from PCIT-2 office to JAO with the direction to resubmit the ASR in the light of exception clause 3.1(h) of CBDT circular no 5/2024 dt. 15.03.2024 along with proper grounds of appeal and condonation of delay
274 days
05.07.2024
Resubmitted ASR as per direction of PCIT-
2, Kolkata
5 days
12.07.2024
Received back from CIT office with the Certificates
7 days
13.07.2024
to 18.07.2024
(included 13th & 14th
June as Saturday and Sunday and 17th
Holiday)
Preparation of grounds of appeal and condonation of delay for filing 2nd appeal before ITAT
6 days
Total time taken for filing appeal

= 305 days
Less: Statutory time allowed for filing appeal = 60 days
Delay in filing appeal

= 245 days
Delay in 245 days which may kindly be condoned.
1.2. Considering the application for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the Revenue had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Bench raising the following grounds of appeal:
I.T.A. No.: 1560/KOL/2024
Assessment Year: 2013-14
Equipment Barter Private Limited.
“1. That the CIT(A) has erred in taking decision in favour of the assessee without any verification on the issue.
2. The CIT(A) has erred ignoring the settled position of law in respect of provision of Sec 68 of the Act that onus of proving the identity &
creditworthiness of the parties from whom the assessee received money and genuineness of the such transaction is on the assessee and the assessee miserably failed to prove so in the instant case.
3. The appellant craves leave to make any amend, addition, alternation, modification etc. of the grounds either before the appellate proceedings, or in the course of appellate proceedings.”
3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company had filed the return of income for the AY 2013-14 showing total income of ₹15,800/-
. Information was received from the DDIT(Inv.), Unit-3(3), Kolkata with regard to layering of funds through the several bank accounts of jamakharachi/shell concerns and it was seen that the assessee company received an amount of ₹25,00,000/- from M/s. Bhumilaxmi
Distributors Pvt. Ltd. which was routed through by bank account of M/s.
Bhumilaxmi
Distributors
Pvt.
Ltd.
providing bogus accommodation entries and it had transferred its undisclosed income in its regular books of account. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') noted that the assessee company had not disclosed its true and full income and income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The assessee company had provided copy of bank statements highlighting the transactions entered into with the Jamakharchi Company. No other details had been provided by the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions entered into by the company nor had anything been brought on record to prove the genuineness of the transactions entered into by the company. The Ld.
AO therefore, added a sum of ₹25,00,000/- to the returned income of I.T.A. No.: 1560/KOL/2024
Assessment Year: 2013-14
Equipment Barter Private Limited.
the assessee u/s 68 of the Act and assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹25,15,800/- u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act.
4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who, vide order dated 29.09.2023, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the Ld. AO was not able to make out a case for addition of ₹2500000/- u/s 144/148 of the Act. The Ld. AO had simply relied on the findings of the Investigation Wing in case of Vinayak Enterprises, that there was no linkage between the fund received by the appellant company and the Vinayak Enterprises. That the appellant had submitted the required details such as the return of income, the audited account and the bank statement of the Bhumi Laxmi
Distributors Pvt. Ltd., to attract the provision of section 68 of the Act.
Further relying on the submission of the appellant, the case laws and the above discussed judicial decision, the addition made by the Ld. AO of ₹25,00,000/- is accordingly deleted. The Ground of Appeal No. 3 is allowed”. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant was partly allowed.
5. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.
6. We have heard the Ld. DR. The Ld. DR submitted as per the grounds of appeal that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the settled position of law in respect of provisions of section 68 of the Act that onus of proving the identity & creditworthiness of the parties from whom the assessee received money and genuineness of such transaction is on the assessee and the assessee miserably failed to prove so in the instant case and requested that the finding of the Ld. AO may be confirmed. It was Further assessee to justify the source of money are not the onus of the Ld. AO to prove beyond reasonable doubt. The Bench was of the I.T.A. No.: 1560/KOL/2024
Assessment Year: 2013-14
Equipment Barter Private Limited.
view that in the interest of justice and fair play, another opportunity needs to be provided to the Revenue. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the appeal to him to be decided afresh, who shall allow an opportunity of being heard to the assessee also and thereby pass an order in accordance with law. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed.
7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 9th September, 2025. [Sonjoy Sarma]

[Rakesh Mishra]
Judicial Member

Accountant Member
Dated: 09.09.2025
Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)
I.T.A. No.: 1560/KOL/2024
Assessment Year: 2013-14
Equipment Barter Private Limited.
Copy of the order forwarded to: