Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Sri Sanjay Garg
order
: January 31st, 2022 ORDER
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXIII, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as ld. ‘CIT(A)] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) dated 26.02.2013 for AY 2007-08.
The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1) For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 7211/- being coordination charges paid by the appellant. 2) For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 27 lakh being the genuine loan taken by the appellant.”
3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has stated at Bar that as per the instruction of his client, he does not press ground no.
1. So, ground no. 1 is dismissed as not pressed.
4. Vide ground no. 2, ld. Counsel for the assessee has contested the addition of Rs. 27 lakh made by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter the ‘AO’) on the ground that the assessee could not establish the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction relating to the alleged loan of Rs. 27 lakh. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has brought my attention to the impugned assessment Assessment Year: 2007-08 Ashoke Das. order and submitted that the same is an ex-parte order passed u/s 144 of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that due to unavoidable circumstances, the assessee could not produce the required evidence before the AO. He has further submitted that the loan transaction was genuine transaction through banking cannel and that the assessee may be given an opportunity to produce the necessary evidence relating to the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. The ld. D/R on the other hand, has relied upon the findings of the lower authorities.
5. Considering the rival submissions, in my view the interest of justice will be well served if the assessee is given an opportunity to produce necessary evidence before the AO to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction.
6. In view of this, the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO with a direction to decide the issue afresh after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee to produce necessary evidence relating to the issue as discussed above.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 31.01.2022. Sd/- [Sanjay Garg] Judicial Member Dated: 31.01.2022 Bidhan (P.S.)
Assessment Year: 2007-08 Ashoke Das. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. 1. Ashoke Das, Nabagram, Panchpota, Garia, Kolkata-700 152. 2. ACIT, Circle- 29, Kolkata. 3. CIT(A)-XXXIII, Kolkata. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.