Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SRI RAJPAL YADAV & SRI MANISH BORAD
order
: June 16th, 2022 ORDER
Per Manish Borad, Accountant Member:
This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2011-12 are directed against the order passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) of ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata-2, Kolkata [in short ld. “PCIT”] dated 26.02.2021 which is arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act dated 07.12.2018.
When the case was called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. In the past, various opportunities have been given and notice through RPAD was sent but no compliance has been given.
I.T.A. No.: 149/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Winsher Sales Pvt. Ltd. It seems that the assessee is not interested to persue its appeal. We, therefore, decide to adjudicate the instant appeal with the assistance of ld. D/R and available records.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of investment in shares and securities. NIL income was declared on 23.03.2013. Assessment order framed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act dated 07.12.2018. Return of income was accepted. Subsequently, ld. PCIT on going through the assessment records, was prima facie of the view that there was a complete lack of enquiry by the ld. AO while framing assessment on 07.12.2018 on the following issues: “2. On perusal of the assessment record of the assessee, it was observed that an information was received from the ITO (lnv.), Unit-3, Kolkata that an amount to the tune of Rs. 11,00,000/- was transferred to the assessee's A/c from M/s. Patra Bastralaya. However, from the cash trail attached thereto, it revealed that the assessee company had received Rs. 27,00,000/- from M/s. Santosh Agency on 14.06.2010. Before transferring this amount to the assessee, M/s. Santosh Agency had received Rs.6,00,000/- on 08.06.2010 & Rs. 5,00,000/- on 14.06.2010 from M/s. Patra Bastralaya. On the basis of information received, notice u/s 142(1) dt 17.08.2018 was issued requiring details of transactions directly/indirectly with M/s patra Bastraiaya. In course of assessment proceedings, the A/R of the assessee alleged that no transaction was held directly/indirectly with M/s Patra Bastraiaya for an amount of Rs.11,00,000/-. However, assessment was completed u/s 143(3)/147 of the I.T. Act on 07.12.2018 accepting the returned income of the assessee. In the Bank Statement, it is seen that Rs. 27,00,000/- was credited from M/s. Santosh Agency to assessee’s A/c on 14.06.2010. But the source & nature of transactions of Rs.27,00,000/- with M/s. Santosh Agency remained unverified. Also, an ambiguity arises whether transaction of Rs.27,00,000/- with M/s. Santosh Agency included Rs.11,00,000/- as received from M/s. Patra Bastraiaya. No cross- I.T.A. No.: 149/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Winsher Sales Pvt. Ltd. verification was done to this effect during the course of assessment. So it remained unexplained and unverified. Therefore, the assessment completed appears to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. On the whole the impugned order dated 07.12.2018 passed u/s. 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 prima facie suffers from lack of independent and adequate enquiry on the aforesaid issues.”
Before ld. PCIT written submissions were filed on 24.02.2021 by the assessee which were considered but not found acceptable by the revisionary authority and directed the ld. AO to pass afresh assessment order considering the issues raised in para 2 of the impugned order.
Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: “
1. For that the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata -2 has erred in law as well as on facts of the case by passing order u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 26/02/2021.
2. For that the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-2 has erred in law as well as on facts of the case by not paying heed to the assessee’s submission made on 24/02/2021 that no transaction of Rs. 11,00,000/- was made by the assessee either directly or indirectly with someone M/s. Patra Bastralaya during F.Y. 2010-11 relating to Asst. Year 2011-12. And for transaction of Rs. 27,00,000/- each and every documentary evidence of transaction was submitted before the Ld. P.C.I.T., Kolkata -2. In spite of that, the Ld. P.C.I.T., Kolkata -2 has set aside the order u/s. 147/143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dt. 07/12/2018 with a direction to pass a fresh assessment order which is not correct although the Assessing Officer, after being satisfied with the submission of the assessee, passed the assessment order.
3. For that the observations and contentions of the Ld. P.C.I.T., Kolkata-2 while passing order u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 regarding Assessing Officer’s order dt. 07/12/2018 as erroneous and pre- judicial to the interest of revenue on the grounds which are not correct.
I.T.A. No.: 149/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Winsher Sales Pvt. Ltd.
4. For that the appellant company craves leave to adduce, modify and or alter the grounds at or before hearing.”
Ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the order of the ld. PCIT.
We have heard ld. D/R and perused the records placed before us. Through this appeal, the assessee has challenged the revisionary proceedings and invoking of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and also raised the ground that ld. PCIT erred in setting aside the order of ld. AO dated 07.12.2018 and directing to pass afresh order.
We notice that ld. PCIT referred to two transactions, firstly, transfer of Rs. 11,00,000/- to the assessee’s account from M/s. Patra Bastraiaya. Another transaction was of Rs. 27,00,000/- reflecting in the assessee’s bank account received from M/s. Santosh Agency on 14.06.2010. Source and nature of transaction of Rs. 27,00,000/- with M/s. Santosh Agency remained unverified. No verification was done to this effect in the course of assessment. Also the connection between the transaction of Rs. 11,00,000/- with M/s. Patra Bastraiaya and the transaction with M/s. Santosh Agency remained unexamined.
We notice that all the above observations made by ld. PCIT in the impugned order were alleged not to have been verified by the ld. AO. The submissions made by the assessee before ld. PCIT appearing in the impugned order are not sufficient to explain the said transactions. No detailed discussion is made in the assessment order also. No paper book has been filed by the assessee to demonstrate that whether ld. AO raised necessary Page 4 of 6 I.T.A. No.: 149/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Winsher Sales Pvt. Ltd. queries/conducted enquiry on the issues referred herein above and whether the assessee had furnished a detailed reply including relevant documents to satisfy the AO.
In lack of all these details, we find no reason to interfere in the finding of ld. PCIT holding the assessment order dated 07.12.2018 u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and setting aside the same for afresh adjudication. Thus, since a valid jurisdiction has been invoked by ld. PCIT, we confirm the finding in the impugned order and dismiss all the grounds raised
by the assessee in the instant appeal.
11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Kolkata, the 16th June, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- [Rajpal Yadav] [Manish Borad] Vice President Accountant Member Dated: 16.06.2022 Bidhan (P.S.)
I.T.A. No.: 149/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Winsher Sales Pvt. Ltd. Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. 1. Winsher Sales Pvt. Ltd., 3K, Roop Chand Roy Street, 2nd Floor, Burrabazar, Kolkata-700 007.
2. PCIT, Kolkata-2, Kolkata.
3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.