BEATLE TRADING PVT. LTD.,,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD - 11(1),, KOLKATA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Beatle Trading Private Limited,
499/2-H/1, 2nd floor, 18B, Pandav
Nagar, F/F Plot No. 10-11-12,
Vishwas Nagar, East Delhi-110032,
PAN No. :AAECB 3708 K

(अपीलधर्थी /Appellant)
..
(प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee by Shri Miraj D Shah, AR
रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR
सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing
: 01/09/2025
घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 09/09/2025
आदेश / O R D E R
Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM :

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre
(NAFC), New Delhi NFAC), Delhi dated 18.11.2024 in Appeal
No.NFAC/2010-11/10052467 passed for Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the order dated 30.09.2021 as passed by the Income Tax Officer,
Ward-20(1), New Delhi (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "The Ld. A.O." or "The Ld. Assessing Officer"]
under section 143(3) read with section 263/254 of the income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "The Act"] and as upheld by the Ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals), National Faceless
Appeal Centre (NFAC) (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as The CIT-(A)") is bad at law and void ab initio.
2. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, order passed under section 143(3) read with section 263/254 of the 2
Act dated 30.09.2021 is null and void as that order is without
DIN and is violation of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT
(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs 18,53,20,500/- u/s 68, being the amount of share capital raised by the Appellant
4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT
(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs 16,199/- u/s 14A.”
3. At the outset, ld AR requested to remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing officer so that the assessee would be able to prove its case before the Assessing Officer by filing substantial documentary evidence in support of its claim.
4. On the other hand, ld CIT DR did not object to the request of ld AR of the assessee.
5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. On perusal of the impugned order, we notice that while adjudicating the share application transaction Assessing Officer had issued notices u/s.133(6) of the Act to the concerned persons for verification of source of the sources of investment but most of the notices were returned unserved with a postal remark either ‘LEFT’ or ‘NO SUCH COMPNAY IN THIS ADDRESS’ and those received the notices, did not response to such notice. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer could not verify the sources of the transaction. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we restore this issue to the file of ld.AO for readjudication afresh after providing sufficient opportunities of the hearing to the assessee. The Assessing
Officer shall conduct fresh independent enquiry and the assessee is directed to produce all the person concerned before the Assessing Officer
3
for verification of transaction in question. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 09/09/2025. (RAJESH KUMAR) (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY)
लेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
न्यधनयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER
कोलकाता Kolkata; ददनाांक Dated 09/09/2025
Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.
आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER,

(