Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
(नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) M/s Vinayak Financial Consultants Vs DCIT, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata Private Limited, 54A, Sarat Bose Road, Arrjavv Building,West Bengal. PAN No. : AACCV 6185 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri A.K.Tulsyan & Shri Robin Maheshwari, Ars : Smt. Madhumita Das, Sr.DR राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 10/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 10/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Kolkata-27, dated 26.09.2024 for the Assessment Year 2017-2018.
Shri A.K.Tulsyan & Shri Robin Maheshwari, ld.ARs appeared on behalf of the assessee and Smt. Madhumita Das, ld. Sr.DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
The appeal of the assessee is barred by 31 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed affidavit stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which are also not found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection. Accordingly, the delay of 31 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.
4. It was the submission by the ld. AR that the Assessing Officer had received certain information that the assessee has received accommodation entries of Rs.10 lakhs and consequently initiated reopening proceedings. It was the submission that the assessee had responded to the reopening proceedings. The Assessing Officer did not dispose of the objection of the assessee and proceeded with the assessment in violation of the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Champalal Omprakash, passed in ITAT/5/2025, GA/2/2025, dated 05.02.2025. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer has also not provided the details of the persons from whom he has received the said information nor provided the said persons who had given the statement for cross examination. It was the submission that he has no objection if the issues in this appeals are restored to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for readjudication after disposing off the objection filed by the assessee in line with the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Champalal Omprakash (supra).
In reply, ld. Sr. DR vehemently relied on the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer & ld. CIT(A).
I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case clearly shows that notice u/s.148 of the Act had been issued to the assessee on 11.03.2021. The assessee has filed its objection on 02.02.2022. The assessment order has been passed on 28.02.2022. Admittedly, the objection of the assessee has been filed before completion of the assessment but obviously it has been done at the very last minute for which the ld.AR says that on account of Covid the delay was occurred. Be that as it may, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication with a direction to the Assessing Officer to dispose off the objection filed by the assessee on 02.02.2022, which reads as under :-
It is further noticed that the assessee has received Rs.10 lakhs from M/s Shivashiv Dealtrade Pvt.Ltd.. After disposing off the said objection of the assessee if the Assessing Officer thinks that some more verification is required on this issue, the assessee is at liberty to produce the authority of M/s. Shivashiv Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd. before the Assessing Officer and substantiate the claim of having provided the funds to the assessee.
In the event that the Assessing Officer proposes to use any adverse evidence against the assessee, the Assessing Officer shall provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to rebut the same.