ITO, WARD - 40(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. JUGAL KISHORE BHAGAT, KOLKATA

This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order dated 10.06.2024 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘CIT(A)’] passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2020–21.

The appeal has been filed by the revenue with a delay of 362 days and the revenue has filed a petition for condonation of the delay. After going over the said petition, we find sufficient reasons behind the delay and consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits.

At the outset, the ld. AR challenges the impugned appeal thereby submitting that the present appeal preferred by the department against the order dated 10.06.2024 passed by the ld. CIT(A) and for the same Jugal Kishore Bhagat order, the assessee had already filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal had already decided the appeal in favour of the assessee vide dated 16.10.2025. The ld. AR submits that the present appeal filed by the department is become infructuous in view of the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for the same assessment year and against the same appellate order. He has placed the order passed by the Tribunal in dated 16.10.2025.

Contrary to that, the ld. DR has conceded the above submission of the ld. AR.

Upon hearing the submissions of the counsels of the respective parties and going over the Tribunal’s order in dated 16.10.2025, we find that the department has filed the present appeal against the same order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 10.06.2024 and on the same issue which was earlier decided the Tribunal in favour of the assessee in ITA No.2612/Kol/2024. We also find that the ld. CIT(A) restricted the estimated disallowance of bogus expenditure claimed on account of purchase of Rs.46,56,37,104/- and the assessee had challenged the same before the Tribunal and the Tribunal modified the order of the ld. CIT(A) by directing the Assessing Officer to sustain the addition to the extent of 1.5% of the bogus purchases vide order dated 16.10.2025. We have also gone through the revision order passed u/s 264 of the Act dated 10.03.2025 wherein the Assessing Officer has been directed to modify the order passed u/s 251 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. Since all the issues and facts have already been decided by the Tribunal in hence the present appeal filed by the department on the similar facts and issues is become infructuous.