JOGMAYA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 37(1), KOLKATA

The Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 16 days. At the time of hearing, Ld. DR stated that the appeal is defective as the appeal is not signed by the appellant. Further no application seeking condonation of delay has been filed and, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on account of delay alone. As no application seeking condonation of delay has been filed, the appeal is hereby dismissed on account of delay.

Further, even on merits the assessee has no case. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1) That the Ld. CIT(A) had wrongly drafted the order by making addition of Purchase even though corresponding sales against respective purchases are accepted. 2) That the Ld. CIT(A) had made wrong addition of Purchase in the order even though the accepted the gross profit i.e. difference of sales and purchases 3) That an opportunity may be provided to produce the documents to proof the genuineness of purchases even though all the vendors have more than 10 years of association with me. 4) For that the appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete all or any of the grounds of appeal.”

Brief facts of the case are that return showing income of ₹18,57,810/- was filed and on the basis of information received from credible sources the assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and order u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act was passed assessing the total income at ₹78,68,412/- after making additions on account of bogus I.T.A. No.: 1063/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jogmaya Construction Company. purchases of ₹57,24,383/- and estimation of 5% of commission of accommodation entries of ₹ 2,86,219/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who issued a notice to the assessee requiring to file a reply. The assessee did not file any reply and in the grounds of appeal had requested that an opportunity may be provided to produce the documents to prove the genuineness of the purchases even though all the vendors have more than 10 years of association with the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) held in para 5 that since the assessee was unresponsive to various opportunities afforded by the Revenue during the course of assessment proceeding and is now seeking another opportunity to enable it to render its say, in the interest justice and as demanded by the majesty of law the entire matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to make a fresh assessment in accordance with law.