INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(1), KOLKATA vs. NATKHAT AGRO FOODS PRIVAT E 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
आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.1737/KOL/2024
(नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019)
P-7, Chowringhee Square,
Kolkata-700069
PAN No. :AADCN 7720 J
(अपीलार्थी /Appellant)
..
(प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)
नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Abhijit Ghosal, AR
राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR
सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing
:
30/06/2025
घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement
:
03/07/2025
आदेश / O R D E R
This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of ld.CIT(A),
National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 28.06.2024 passed for Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. It was submitted by the ld.Sr. DR that the assessee had taken a loan of Rs.8 lakhs from M/s Marubhumi Enclave Pvt. Ltd.. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer has treated the loan as accommodation entries, insofar as a search in the case of Banka Group shows that the said group was provided accommodation entries through the said M/s Marubhumi
Enclave Pvt. Ltd.. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) in para 7.5.1 of his order took a stand that the assessee has provided all the information and consequently deleted the addition. It was the submission that before
ITANo.1737/KOL/2024
2
deleting the addition, remand report had not been called for from Assessing
Officer.
3. In reply, ld. AR drew the attention of the Bench to the confirmation of accounts which reads as follows :-
It was submitted that the assessee had taken loan on 04.05.2027 for Rs.3 lakhs and Rs.5 lakhs on 29.06.2017 and the same had already been repaid immediately during the year itself being on 28.03.2018 for Rs.3 lakhs and Rs.5 lakhs on 29.03.2018. It was the submission that these evidences were before the ld. Assessing Officer but the Assessing Officer had not considered the same. It was the submission that these were squared off
ITANo.1737/KOL/2024
3
during the impugned assessment year. Ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the order of ld.CIT(A).
5. I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld.CIT(A) clearly shows that the ld. CIT(A) has considered the same evidence as were before the ld. Assessing Officer to delete the addition.
The ld. CIT(A) has considered the facts that the loans have already been repaid during the assessment year under consideration. This amount was received through bank account. As the revenue is not able to dislodge any findings of facts as arrived by the ld. CIT(A), I am of the view that the order of the ld. CIT(A) does not call for any interference. In such circumstances, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed.
6. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Order 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.
आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER,
(