PRAVIN JAIN ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), , JALPAIGURI

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 17.02.2025, passed by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, passed for the assessment year 2018-2019. 3. At the time of hearing, an adjournment letter has been filed. The clerk from the ld. AR’s office appeared for seeking adjournment. Consequently, the adjournment application has been rejected and the appeal is disposed off. 4. Ld.Sr. DR relied on the order of the ld. Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). 5. We have considered the submissions of the ld. Sr. DR as also the orders of the authorities below. A perusal of para 7.3.2 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that the assessee has attempted to file additional evidence during the appellate proceedings and the ld. CIT(A) has not admitted the same on account of violation of Rule 46A(1) of the I.T.Rules, 1962. It is also noticed that this issue is in regard to an addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s.68 of the Act and in respect of the disallowance u/s.37(1) of the Act. In regard to the addition on estimate u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has taken a stand that the assessee has not been able to show that no interest has been paid on the loans taken. Nor has the assessee been able to show that he had charged interest on the loans advanced during the year to Mr. Rinku Jain. A perusal of the assessment order shows that in respect of disallowance u/s.68 of the Act, the Assessing Officer has taken a stand that the assessee has failed to submit the requisite details, which could conclusively establish beyond doubt the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the transaction. Similarly in respect of the disallowance u/s.37(1) of the Act, the same is in relation to the addition which has been made by invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. In respect of the disallowance u/s.37(1)(iii) of the Act, it is made on account of interest free loan given to Mr. Rinku Jain. As it has been mentioned by the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. Assessing Officer that the assessee has not provided adequate evidence, therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld.AO for readjudication and to grant the assessee adequate opportunity to produce the evidence to the satisfaction of the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. Assessing Officer shall in the course of readjudication proceedings, grant the assessee adequate opportunity to produce all such evidences as required to substantiate his case. 6. In the result, apeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical