Loading judgment…
Facts
The revenue filed appeals against orders of the CIT(A) which allowed the assessee's appeals. The original assessment involved additions made after a search and seizure operation on an entry operator, who allegedly provided bogus accommodation entries to the assessee.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by allowing the assessee's appeal without calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer to verify the genuineness of the transactions.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the appeal without obtaining a remand report from the AO to verify the genuineness of transactions.
Sections Cited
143(1), 132, 147, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthi
Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2112-13 ITO, Ward-10(2), Kolkata.…………………….…………….……....Appellant vs. EMS Polyset Pvt. Ltd………………………………………….…..... Respondent Gobinda Niwas, Jyangra, Baguihati, Kolkata - 700059. [PAN: AAACE5551F] Appearances by: Shri Susanta Saha, ACIT- Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Subrato Rai, FCA, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : August 13, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : August 18, 2025 आदेश / ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
The captioned appeals have been preferred by the revenue against two separate orders both dated 06.08.2024 passed by the CIT(Appeals) ADDL/JCIT(A), Madurai [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 respectively. Since, the issues involved in both the appeals are common and relate to the same assessee, therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. First, we take up for narration of facts.
At the outset, the Registry has informed that there are delays of 27 days in filing both the present appeals. The revenue filed applications for condonation of delay stating reasons for such delay. After considering the applications, we find reasonable cause. We, &2194/Kol/2024 EMS Polyset Pvt. Ltd therefore, condone the delay in filing the appeals and adjudicate the appeals on merits of the case. 3.
- Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company and filed its return of income for the assessment year in question by declaring total income of Rs.3,22,352/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and subsequently, an information was received that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was caried out in the office premises of Shri Sanjiu Kumar Singh, a well- known entry operator. It was found by the Assessing Officer that Shri Singh provided various bogus accommodation entries to various beneficiaries and the Assessing Officer also found that the assessee has also got benefit of accommodation entry of Rs.16,06,800/-. Accordingly, notice u/s 147 of the Act was issued and the Assessing Officer made certain additions in the hands of the assessee.
Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by accepting certain documents without calling a remand report from the Assessing Officer.
Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal raising various grounds. However, the main contention of the ld. DR at the time of hearing is that while passing the impugned order by the ld. CIT(A) did not call remand report from the Assessing Officer relating to verification of genuineness of the transaction, therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is bad in law.
On the other hand, the ld. AR submitted that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is a correct one and there is no need to interfere in the said order.
&2194/Kol/2024 EMS Polyset Pvt. Ltd 7. We, after hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, find that while passing the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) did not call remand report from the Assessing Officer in order to verify the genuineness of the transaction, therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is bad in law. Therefore, we feel it necessary to remand the whole issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer without any fail. Hence, the present appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 8.
Since the facts and issues involved in the present appeal are identical, except difference in figures, therefore, our findings/directions given above in will mutatis mutandis apply to the instant appeal. Therefore, is allowed for statistical purposes
In terms of the above, both the captioned appeals of the revenue appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.