Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “D” KOLKATA
Before: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara
M/s Abhiyan developers Pvt. Income Tax Officer, बनाम / Ltd., 72/4, Shambhu Nath Ward-10(2), Aayakar V/s. Pandit Street, Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 025 Chowringheee Square, [PAN No.AAGCA 2974 A] Kolkata-700 069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Ravi Tulsian, FCA अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Dhrubojyoti Roy, JCIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-06-2020 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement 24-06-2020 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata’s order dated 13.12.2018, passed in case No. 132/CIT(A)-15/16-17/Wd.10(2)/R&T/Kol u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Case file suggests that the CIT(A) has passed his lower appellate order ex pare whilst affirming the Assessing Officer’s action treating the assessee’s share capital / premium of ₹3,82,20,000/- as unexplained cash credits. He holds in para-4.1 page-9 of the lower appellate order that the assessee’s first appeal M/s Abhiyan Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-10(2), Kol. Page 2 had been fixed for hearing on 19.03.2018, 14.09.2018, 25.10.2018, 22.11.2018 and 13.12.2018 and it failed to appear despite having been afforded said numerous opportunities. Learned counsel’s case on the other hand is that assessee had filed its written submissions before CIT(A) on the last date i.e. 13.12.2018 explaining identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the four investor party(ies) namely M/s Mohan Management Ltd, Rameshwar Consultants Ltd., Sri Siromani Dealers Pvt. Ltd., and Shyam Sundar Choudhary which have nowhere been considered in the lower appellate discussion. We find that the assessee’s written submission(s) contained the supportive evidence as well which formed part of assessment records. The Assessing Officer’s corresponding assessment framed on 20.03.2015 has also not considered the same. All these clinching facts have gone unrebutted from the Revenue side.
After giving our thoughtful consideration to rival submissions against and in support of the impugned unexplained cash credits addition, we are of the view that same deserves to be restored back to the Assessing Officer since the relevant evidence has not been considered in either of the lower proceedings. We order accordingly. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine the assessee’s case afresh as per law.