TOPFLOW SUPPLIERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 9(1), , KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1071/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 July 2025AY 2017-2018Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal rejected the assessee's adjournment request and restored the case to the AO for fresh readjudication. The assessee was directed to produce the representative of the loan provider to substantiate the claim, failing which the AO could draw an adverse inference. A cost of Rs. 25,000 was levied on the assessee for non-compliance, which, if unpaid within 60 days, would lead to the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an ex-parte order from the CIT(A) for A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee had also failed to represent their case before the AO regarding an alleged loan of Rs. 25 lakhs from M/s Sri Sakthi Sai Enterprises, for which details were not provided.

What were the issues?

The primary issues involved the non-submission of details for a claimed loan by the assessee, their non-appearance before authorities, and the conditions for remanding the case for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

Hearing: 23/07/2025Pronounced: 23/07/2025

O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A), NFAC in appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/s/250/2024-25/1075145214(1) vide order dated 27.03.2025 for A.Y. 2017-18.

2.

Shri B.C.Jain, ld AR appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Shankar Naskar, ld.Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3.

An adjournment application has been filed by Shri Rakesh Jain, FCA on behalf of the assessee and Shri B.C.Jain, FCA appeared and sought adjournment on behalf of Shri Rakesh Jain, who is authorized representative of the assessee. However, looking to the facts of the case, the adjournment application is rejected and the appeal is heard finally.

1.

4. It was noticed that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte and that the assessee has not represented its matter before the AO also. Consequently, it was informed to the ld. AR, who appeared on behalf of Shri Rakesh Jain, ld AR of the assessee, the matter would be sent back to the file of AO, subject to levy of cost. The ld. Counsel has agreed to the same.

5.

In reply, ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the ld. AO and ld. CIT(A).

6.

I have considered the rival submissions. Considering the facts of the case, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld. AO for readjudication afresh. The fact shows that the assessee has allegedly taken a loan of Rs.25 lakhs from M/s Sri Sakthi Sai Enterprises. The assessee has not provided the details of M/s Sri Sakthi Sai Enterprises before the AO. The assessee shall produce the representative of M/s Sri Sakthi Sai Enterprises before the AO to substantiate its claim of loan. In the absence of the assessee to produce the concerned authority of M/s Sri Sakthi Sai Enterprises in respect of confirmation of the loan of Rs.25 lakhs, the AO is at liberty to draw adverse inference. As the assessee has not represented before the Assessing Officer nor complied the notices issued by the ld.CIT(A), therefore, a cost of Rs.25000/- (Rupees Twentyfive Thousand only) is hereby levied on the assessee to be payable to the Legal Aid Services, 3rd Floor of the Centenary Building, High Court, Calcutta-700001, within sixty days from the date of this order and receipt of the same would be produced before the ld. CIT(A) at the first hearing. Should the assessee not pay the abovementioned costs within the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of this order, the order of the ld. CIT(A) shall stand confirmed.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →