PRASUN KUMAR ROY,HOOGHLY vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-23(1), HOOGHLY
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA
BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT
Prasun Kumar Roy,
Pallishree, Arambagh, Hoogly,
West Bengal-712601
Vs DCIT, Circle-23(1), Hooghly
PAN No. :ADBPR 1457 N
(अपीलधर्थी /Appellant)
..
(प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)
निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Anil Kochar, AR
रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, JCIT, Sr. DR
सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing
:
09/04/2025
घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement
:
05/06/2025
आदेश / O R D E R
The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless
Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 26.11.2024 passed for Assessment
Year 2017-18. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee is with regard to sustenance of addition by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC made by the ld. Assessing Officer on account of difference of expenses explained by the assessee against the total expenses incurred by the assessee through credit card.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his original return of income for the Asst. Year 2017-18 on 08-06-2017, declaring a total income of Rs.10,67,540/-. He filed his revised return of income for the year on 03-08-2017, declaring a same total income of Rs.10,67,540/-.
Nature of his business/income during the year was mainly income from company trading besides some other income during the year. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS in Limited Category.
ITANo.2621/KOL/2024
2
Statutory notices were issued and served on the assessee. The assessee has filed some documents on two instances however, thereafter the assessee was continuously non-compliant during course of assessment proceedings as has been stated by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order at para 2.1.1. Accordingly, from the departmental online record during F.Y.2016-2017, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has made the following payments through credit cards :-
Last Date of Transaction
Identification No.
Amount
31-03-17
4386280017116210
4,96,000
29-03-17
4196074957043038
14,25,000
31-03-17
5546377012526470
65,500
31-03-17
4386280012220820
5,76,000
31-03-17
4412850067930000
7,35,000
Total
32,97,500
However, on perusal of the ledger copy relating to M/s Arambagh Hatcheries Ltd. filed by the assesse during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that the company has paid total amount of Rs.12,11,289.98 on the different dates as shown in the table incorporated by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order at para 3.1.3. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee could not explain the details and source of fund of expenses of balance amount of Rs.20,86,210,02 and added the same to the total income of the assessee treating the same as undisclosed income. 5. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A), NFAC confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer holding that the assessee could not explain nor substantiate his claim before either of the authorities. 6. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal.
ITANo.2621/KOL/2024
3
7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the addition as made by the AO of Rs.20,86,210/- on account of payments made through credit cards of the assesse is arbitrary as the credit cards disputed by the department are not belonged to the assesse. He pleaded that the assesse has already denied before the ld. CIT(A) that the credit card numbers shown by the department are not related to the assesse. The AO has not disputed the expenses incurred by the assesse through the credit cards related to the assesse only. Therefore, he pleaded that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) is not sustainable and prayed for one more opportunity to substantiate its claim before the AO.
8. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that before the AO the assesse could not explain about the repayment of loans through credit cards for an amount of Rs.20,86,210/-. The assesse also failed to explain the same before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, he pleaded to confirm the orders passed by both AO and ld. CIT(A).
9. After hearing the submission of the parties and perusing the material available on record, I find that the main contention of the assesse is that the above mentioned credit cards are not pertaining to the assesse. The AO has not considered this aspect and erroneously made an addition of Rs.20,86,210/-.
Therefore, he pleaded for one more opportunity before the AO to examine this issue afresh. After considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that it is a fit case to remand back the issues involved in the present appeal to the file of AO to examine as to whether the credits cards are belonged to the assesse or not. If it is not belonged to the assesse, the assesse is entitled for relief. Thus, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remanded
ITANo.2621/KOL/2024
4
back to the file of AO to examine the issue afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assesse. At the same brief, the assesse is directed to cooperate with the AO and place all the relevant documents before the AO, failing which the AO is at liberty to pass the order placing on the material available on record. Hence, the sole ground raised by the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes.
10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 05/06/2025. (DUVVURU RL REDDY)
उपाध्यक्ष / VICE PRESIDENT
कोलकाता Kolkata; दिनाांक Dated 05/06/2025
Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.
आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER,
(