INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA vs. SONU MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,“एस.एम.सी” न्यायपीठ, कोलकाता
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA
श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष ।
BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata
Vs M/s Sonu Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
71/3, Kankurgachi,
Kolkata-700054
PAN No. :AADCS 5515 L
(अपीलार्थी /Appellant)
..
(प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)
राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR
नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Ms. Vidhi Ladia, AR
सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing
:
01/07/2025
घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement
:
01.07.2025
आदेश / O R D E R
This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the ld.
CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 19.03.2025, passed in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074708973(1) for the Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, ld.Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue and Ms. Vidhi Ladia, ld. AR appeared on behalf of the assessee.
3. In the revenue's appeal the revenue has raised the following grounds:-
1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 29.48,304/- on account of non-genuine losses.
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deciding the case in favour of the assessee by misinterpreting the relevant terms of the decisions Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of UOI vs. Ashish Agarwalla (2022 SCC Online SC 543) and UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal (dated 03.10.2024) [Civil Appeal No. 8629 of 2024].
ITANo.923/KOL/2025
2
3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in falling to appreciate the facts in proper perspective in light of genuineness of loss while concluding in favour of the assessee.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon ble ITAT has erred 171 deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 68, which were based on the probability of surrounding circumstances wherein the transactions were blatantly suspicious and the rules of suspicious transactions apply, as has been held in the case of Hersh W. Chadha v. Deputy Director of Income-tax, Circle-1(1), International Taxation[ 2011] 9 taxmann.com 1 (Delhi)/[2011] 43 SOT 544 (Delhi)/[2011] 135 TTJ 513 (Delhi).
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in not appreciating the judicial principles laid down in the matter of Pr. CIT Vs. Swati Bajaj reported in [2022] 139 taxmann.com 352 (Cal)/446 ITR 56 (Cal) wherein the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta laid down guidelines on the manner in which the allegation against the assessee has to be considered.
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case. and in law. the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the judicial principles laid down in the matter of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) and also in the matter of CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 1973 CTR (SC) 500: [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC).
The appellant prays that the tax effect in the instant case is 9,11,026/- which is below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024. However, it is humbly prayed that the case falls within the exception clause 3.1(h) of Circular No.05/2024 dated 15.03.2024 as a modus operandi of evasion is involved in the case, meaning thereby that large amounts of money have been brought to the books /system of the assessee company in highly suspicious circumstances.
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not remanding the matter back to the AO for fresh verification. Thus, the provisions of Rule 46A of the 1.T. Rules are violated.
That the appellant craves leave to add to and/or alter. amend, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.
A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that the ld.CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that in view of the ITANo.923/KOL/2025
3
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal and Ashish Agarwal, the reopening is liable to be quashed.
5. In the present case, the revenue's grounds do not have any challenge to the said grounds but the revenue has challenged the deletion of the additions on merits. This being so, as the grounds raised by the revenue does not come out of the order of the ld. CIT(A), the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed.
6. Further also, the tax effect in the present case is below the threshold limit of Rs.60 lakhs insofar as the tax effect is only Rs.9,11,026/-. This being so, on this ground also the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed.
7. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 01/07/2025. (जाजज माथन)
(GEORGE MATHAN)
न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER
कोलकाता Kolkata; ददनाांक Dated 01/07/2025
Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.
आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER,
(