DAHISAR TRADERS PVT. LTD.(SINCE MERGED)(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VAISHALI HOUSING PROJECTS PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the issue was not examined on merits by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination and verification of the assessee's claim, providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerns an addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of alleged unaccounted money routed through paper companies. The assessee claims this sum was paid to another company, not received as alleged by the AO.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- was correctly made without proper examination of the assessee's claim regarding payment versus receipt of funds.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Dr. Manish Borad
Per Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member:- This appeal at the instance of assessee for assessment year 2017-18 is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 09.05.2022 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The sole grievance of the assessee in Grounds No. 1 to 5 of this appeal is against the addition of Rs.2,50,000/- confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) made by the ld. Assessing Officer on account of unaccounted money of Rs.2,50,000/- alleged to be routed in the regular books of the assessee through paper/jamakharchi companies. (A.Y. 2012-13) Dahisar Traders Pvt. Limited (since merged) Formerly known as Vaishali Housing Project Pvt. Limited
At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the alleged sum has been paid by the assessee to M/s. Visage Equipment Pvt. Limited, whereas the lower authorities are alleging that the assessee has received the sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. Request was also made by him that if desired, the issue may be restored to the ld. Assessing Officer for necessary examination and verification.
Ld. D.R. did not raise any oppose on the request of the ld. Counsel for the assessee of restoring the issue to the ld. Assessing Officer.
I have heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant material placed before me. The only grievance of the assessee is against the addition of unaccounted money of Rs.2,50,000/-. Perusal of the assessment order reveals that the ld. Assessing Officer has made the addition alleging that the assessee-company was running on papers and was beneficiary of taking accommodation entries through layering the funds of its entities during financial year 2011-12. The assessee failed to make proper representation before the ld. Assessing Officer and the assessment order under section 144/147 of the Act was framed on 26.12.2019. The assessee failed to file any submission before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and also did not appear on the date of hearing. No other request letter for adjournment of hearing was filed. Before me, ld. Counsel for the assessee has stated that the alleged sum is not received by the assessee but has been paid by the assesee to M/s. Visage Equipment Pvt. Limited on 22.03.2012 from the Bank account held with ICICI Bank. I notice that the ld. Assessing Officer has alleged the assessee to have received the said sum and the assessee is claiming to have paid the sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. Further looking to the facts that the issue raised in the instant appeal has not been examined on merit by both the lower authorities, I being fair to both the parties deem it proper to restore the issue raised in this appeal to the file of ld. Assessing Officer who shall examine the veracity of the claim of the assessee on the basis of ITA No. 396/KOL/2022(A.Y. 2012-13) Dahisar Traders Pvt. Limited (since merged) Formerly known as Vaishali Housing Project Pvt. Limited documents filed before him for which reasonable opporthnity of being heard to be provided to the assessee and decide in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on September 20th, 2022.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026