Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi
Prodip Chandra Sorcar Appellant [PAN:AMSPS1071R] Vs DCIT, Circle-22, Kolkata Respondent For the Appellant : Shri S.L. Kochar AR & Shri Anil Kochar, AR For the Respondent : Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl.CIT, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 11.02.2019 Date of pronouncement : 03.05.2019 ORDER PER Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM:
All these three appeals by the assessee filed against separate orders dated 30.10.2017, 30.10.2017 & 22.05.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata [‘CIT(A)’] for Assessment Year 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2008-09 respectively.
Since the issues raised in all the appeals are based on identical facts and therefore we proceed to hear all the appeals above together and to pass a consolidated order for the sake of brevity. Page | 1
Prodip Chandra Sorcar & 2421/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 3. First we shall take up ITA No.1628/Kol/2018 for Assessment Year 2008-09.
Heard both parties and perused the materials available on record. The ld. AR contended that there was no opportunity to the assessee to prosecute grounds raised before the first appellate authority as the said grounds were dismissed for non-compliance and prayed to remand the matter to the file of CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The ld. DR reported no objection in remanding the matter to the file of CIT(A) for his fresh consideration. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the issues raised therein, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of CIT(A) for his fresh consideration in the interest of justice. The assessee is at liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of his claim. Thus grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Now we shall take up for Assessment Year 2009-10.
Heard both parties and perused the materials available on record. The ld. AR submits that the assessee is a renowned magician entered into a service agreement with M/s Tower Infotech Limited for supervising a project and the expenses incurred by the M/s Tower Infotech Limited are being disallowed in the hands of assessee by the A.O and partly confirmed by the CIT(A). The contention of the ld. AR is that the assessee has been given supervisory role in executing a service agreement to construct Ghosh Restaurant and is not a contractor. Further, the assessee did not claim such expenditure in his profit & loss a/c and argued that when there is no expenditure claimed in his hands, there cannot be any disallowances. The ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) discussed the issue in his impugned order but however agreed to remand the matter to the file of A.O only for the limited verification Page | 2
Prodip Chandra Sorcar & 2421/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 whether the assessee has claimed the said expenditure in his profit & loss a/c. Therefore, taking into consideration of the submissions of the ld. AR and DR and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of A.O for his fresh consideration to verify whether the expenditure involving the additions made thereon, were claimed by the hands of assessee in his profit & loss a/c or not and pass order in accordance with law. The assessee is at liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of its claim. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Now we shall take up for Assessment Year 2011-12.
Heard both parties and perused the materials available on record. We find that the issue raised in this appeal is similar to the issue raised in wherein we have taken a view in remanding the matter to the file of A.O for his verification as indicated therein. Therefore the view taken by us in the similar issue in assessee’s own appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 in the aforementioned paragraphs is applicable to this appeal also. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 03.05.2019.