DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S GD REALITY PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, ld.Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue and Shri Miraz D. Shah, ld. AR appeared on behalf of the assessee.

It was submitted by the ld.Sr. DR that in the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer has questioned the loan received by the assessee from M/s Gangadham Tracon Pvt. Ltd. to an extent of Rs.50 lakhs. It was the submission that the ld.CIT(A) had deleted the addition by holding that the loan advances were repaid in the subsequent assessment year. It was the submission that evidence of repayment of the loan was not produced before the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer had also issued notice u/s.133(6) of the Act but there is 2 no response. Ld.Sr. DR drew my attention to page 23 of the assessment order to submit that even the Inspector had been sent for verification in respect of the company and the company was not found to be exist. It was the submission that the order of the ld.CIT(A) giving relief to the assessee without considering the assessment order and by considering the fresh evidence, is liable to be reversed.

In reply, ld.AR on behalf of the assessee submitted that the loans have been repaid during the immediately succeeding assessment year being A.Y.2016-2017. It was the submission that the loan has taken during the assessment year 2014-2015, TDS was deducted. It was the submission that the assessee has produced the ledger account of the loan, the details of the company from which the loan has been received and such other details as has been called for by the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that the assessee having proven the entire transaction in regard to the loan, the order of the ld.CIT(A) is liable to be upheld.

On this point, it was argued by the ld. Sr. DR that he may produce the evidence in respect of repayment of loans before the Assessing Officer to which the ld. AR submitted that he needs more time to file the details of the paper book which has been submitted before the Assessing Officer. This was denied to the ld.AR.

I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the Assessing Officer has issued notice u/s.133(6) of the Act to the director of the assessee company. The ld.AR also placed 3 before me a list of the directors of the assessee’s company, which reads as follows :-

It was the submission that the persons mentioned by the Assessing Officer have never been the director of the assessee’s company. The lender company has not produce nor responded to the notices issued u/s.133(6) of the Act. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to produce such documents as called for by the 4 Assessing Officer to prove the transaction of the receipt of the loan and repayment of the loan before the Assessing Officer.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 03/07/2025. (जाजज माथन) (GEORGE MATHAN) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कोलकाता Kolkata; ददनाांक Dated 03/07/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.