KALASH MERCANTILE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was given liberty to produce all documents before the AO to substantiate its claim.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed expenses of Rs. 82,38,231/- on the transfer of a capital asset. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) disallowed the claim as the assessee failed to produce documents to substantiate the genuineness of the services rendered. The assessee later produced documents before the Tribunal, but it was noted these were not filed before the lower authorities.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance of expenses incurred on transfer of a capital asset was justified due to non-production of supporting documents before the lower authorities.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM]
ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM
This appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Kolkata dated 02.02.2017 for AY 2012-13.
At the outset itself, the Ld. DR for the Revenue brought to our notice that the authorities below i.e. AO/Ld. CIT(A) has not granted/allowed the claim of assessee for expenditure aggregating to Rs.82,38,231/- incurred on transfer of capital asset because assessee did not produce any documents to substantiate the genuineness of the services purported to have been rendered by the four persons/entities for claiming the expenditure in respect to transfer of capital asset. We note that the Ld. AR before us has filed two sets of paper book, 1st paper book comprises of 38 pages which was filed on 01.11.2018 and another supplementary paper book consists of 19 pages which was filed on 11.12.2018. A perusal of the same, we note that there is no certificate as per rules to authenticate that these documents placed in both paper books were filed before the AO/Ld. CIT(A). We note that Kalash Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 the Ld. DR is in possession of the assessment records. After going through the assessment records, the Ld. DR pointed out that the assessee did not produce any documents which are being produced before us by filing these two sets of paper books. The said facts could not be controverted by the Ld. AR. In such a scenario, in the interest of justice and fair play, we are inclined to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication of the claim of expenses aggregating to Rs.82,38,231/- as claimed by the assessee to have incurred on transfer of capital asset. The assessee is at liberty to produce all documents before the AO to substantiate its claim and the AO to pass an order after hearing the assessee in accordance to law. Appeal assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 9th January, 2019.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026