MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL L/H OF LATE MAHESH PRASAD AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 26(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1483/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 February 2025AY 2017-2018Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed for statistical purposes

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the stock summary was complex and required verification at the Assessing Officer's level, stating that income cannot be assessed on wrong facts. It restored the issue to the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the matter de novo after considering all evidences and explanations furnished by the assessee and affording reasonable opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against additions of Rs. 39,57,741/- for undisclosed purchases under Section 69 and Rs. 1,73,348/- for profit on undisclosed purchases, confirmed by the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18. The assessee argued that the lower authorities misconstrued facts and that there were no undisclosed purchases or profits, requesting the matter be referred back to the AO for verification.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the additions for undisclosed purchases and profit under Section 69 were correctly made and confirmed by lower authorities. 2. Whether the stock summary and purchase details were properly scrutinized, necessitating a remand for de novo verification by the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM]

Pronounced: 25.02.2025

ORDER Per Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM

The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 07.06.2024 for AY 2017-18 arising out of assessment order passed u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) by ACIT, Circle 26(1), Kolkata dated 28.12.2019.

2.

The assessee has raised various grounds challenging the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on merit namely, Rs.39,57,741/- on account of undisclosed purchases u/s. 69 of the Act and Rs.1,73,348/- on account of profit on undisclosed purchases. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed before the Bench a very complex calculation in support of his grounds of appeal, wherein it was submitted that there was no difference in purchases and, therefore, no undisclosed purchases or undisclosed profit and the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) has misconstrued the facts of the case and hence, the addition by the Assessing Officer and further confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) were totally based on the wrong appreciation of facts. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue may be referred to Manoj Kumar Agarwal, AY 2017-18 and got verified from the Assessing Officer by restoring the same to the file of the Assessing Officer.

3.

The Ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly opposed the restoration of the case on the ground that assessee was given sufficient opportunity before both the authorities below. However, the details were not filed before the authorities below and, therefore, the request of the assessee may kindly be ignored.

4.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the stock summary for the year ended 31.03.2017 is containing details of opening balance (quantity, rate and value), Inwards (quantity, rate and value), outwards (quantity, rate and value) and closing balance (quantity, rate and value) and, therefore, the issue requires verification at the level of the Assessing Officer as no income can be assessed on wrong facts. Therefore, we restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the same de novo after taking into account the evidences/explanation furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, we restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the appeal on merit after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →