SWAPAN SAHA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 37(1), KOLKATA
आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “ए’’, कोलकाता
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA
Įी Ĥदȣप कुमार चौबे, ÛयाǓयक सदèय एवं Įी राकेश ͧमĮ, लेखा सटèय के सम¢
[Before Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member &Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member]
I.T.A. No. 1906/Kol/2024
Assessment Year: 2013-14
Swapan Saha
(PAN: DOSPS 8167 D)
Vs.
ITO, Ward-27(1), Kolkata
Appellant /
)
अपीलाथȸ
(
Respondent / Ĥ×यथȸ
Date of Hearing / सुनवाई
कȧ Ǔतͬथ
16.04.2025
Date of Pronouncement/
आदेश उɮघोषणा कȧ Ǔतͬथ
28.04.2025
For the assessee /
Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से
Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate
For the revenue / राजèव
कȧ ओर से
Shri Subhendu Datta, CITDR
ORDER / आदेश
Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM:
This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated
27.08.2024 for AY 2013-14. 2
I.T.A. No. 1906/Kol/2024
Assessment Year: 2013-14
Swapan Saha
Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee did not file return of income for AY 2013-14. Subsequently based on information that the assessee had purchased immovable property of Rs. 11,75,97,318/- during FY 2012-13, a proceedings u/s 148 of the Act was initiated and in response to the same the assessee filed return of income declaring Rs. 1,14,870/-. The assessee filed submission thereby saying that no property was purchased / sold by the assessee during FY 2012-13 rather the assessee acted merely as an authorized signatories on behalf of several corporate entities in excluding the property transactions. The AO rejected the submission of the assessee and treated the entire purchase value as an unexplained income by making an addition of Rs. 11,75,97,318/- u/s 69 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the assessee preferred an appeal before us.
4. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee instead of arguing into merit of the case has only submitted that the appeal of the assessee be remitted back to the file of AO for proper verification as no property has been purchased by the assessee in its individual capacity during FY 2012-13 and agreement executed by him only on behalf of body corporate being an authorized signatory. The Ld. Counsel filed complete list of companies in which the assessee acted as an authorized representative along with relevant deed, copies of ROC Papers.
5. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in remitting the appeal back to the file of AO for proper verification.
6. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties, we have perused the order of AO as well as Ld. CIT(A). Going over the order passed by the AO we find that in response to the notices the assessee filed submission in which the assessee has clearly stated that agreement executed by the assessee as authorized signatories on behalf of body corporate and no property was purchased / sold by the 3
I.T.A. No. 1906/Kol/2024
Assessment Year: 2013-14
Swapan Saha assessee during FY 2012-13. The Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the order of AO by holding that the assessee’s failure to adequately explain the nature of the corporate entities involved, along with the absence of substantive evidence to establish that these entities had the financial capacity to undertake such high transaction. The Ld. CIT(A) has further held that the assessee did not furnish any documentary evidence to prove financial standing of the corporate entity or the source of fund of the property transaction. We have gone through the copy of relevant deed and find that signature of the assessee bears as an authorized signatory. The assessee has also filed the extract of minutes of meeting of the board of directors of M/s Edika Tower Limited which is in the paper book that clearly reveals that the assessee has been authorized to appear and represent before any notary