CHANDRA PRAKASH BAID,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 44(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

The assessee in the present case is an individual, who is engaged in the business of trading in aluminium foils, paper packing material and general merchandise. The returns of income for the years under , 101 & 102 /KOL/2018 Assessment years: 2009-2010, 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 Page 2 of 5 consideration were filed by him declaring total income of Rs.2,80,670/-, Rs.3,84,350/- and Rs.5,79,650/- for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. In the assessment originally completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 23.12.2011, the total income of the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.3,95,300/-, while the returns of income filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12 were processed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1) accepting the income as returned by the assessee. Subsequently the Assessing Officer received certain information showing that the assessee had entered into bogus transactions with some parties during all the three years under consideration. He, therefore, reopened the assessments for the said years and in the assessments completed under section 147/143(3) vide orders dated 23.03.2015, additions of Rs.15,99,956/-, Rs.2,04,344/- and Rs.1,91,342/- were made by the Assessing Officer on account of the alleged bogus transactions for assessment year 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. In the assessment for Assessment Year 2009-10, the Assessing Officer also made two more small additions to the total income of the assessee.

Against the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147/143(3) for all the three years under consideration, appeals were preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals). During the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(Appeals), detailed written submissions were filed in support of the assessee’s case and after reproducing the same in his impugned orders, the ld. CIT(Appeals) proceeded to decide the issues raised in the appeals of the assessee. As regards the additions made by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee for all the three years under consideration on account of the alleged bogus transactions, the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not find merit in the submissions made by the assessee and rejecting the same, he confirmed the said additions. As regards the two minor additions made by the Assessing Officer in A.Y. 2009-10, the ld. CIT(Appeals), however, found merit in the case of the assessee on these issues and deleted both these , 101 & 102 /KOL/2018 Assessment years: 2009-2010, 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 Page 3 of 5 additions. The ld. CIT(Appeals) thus partly allowed the appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 and dismissed the appeals of the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12. Aggrieved by the orders of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred these appeals before the Tribunal.

In Ground No. 1 raised in these appeals, the assessee has raised a common preliminary issue challenging the validity of assessments made by the Assessing Officer under section 147/143(3) for all the three years under consideration.

I have heard the arguments of both the sides on this preliminary issue and also perused the relevant material available on record. As specifically mentioned by the assessee in the relevant grounds raised in these appeals and further reiterated by his ld. Counsel at the time of hearing before the Tribunal, the issue relating to validity of reopening of the assessments by the Assessing Officer for all the three years under consideration was specifically raised by the assessee by way of additional grounds and a detailed submission was also made in writing in support thereof during the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(Appeals). He has contended that even though the ld. CIT(Appeals) has reproduced the said submission made by the assessee in writing in his impugned orders, he has not discussed or decided this preliminary issue raised by the assessee by way of additional ground challenging the validity of reopening of assessments for all the three years under consideration. This position, which is clearly evident from the impugned orders of the ld. CIT(Appeals), has not been disputed even by the ld. D.R. A perusal of the impugned orders of the ld. CIT(Appeals) also shows that he has not even decided the issue relating to the admission of additional ground raised by the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings before him challenging the validity of reopening of assessments. As rightly contended by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, he has also not considered and decided this issue specifically raised by the assessee by , 101 & 102 /KOL/2018 Assessment years: 2009-2010, 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 Page 4 of 5 way of additional grounds, even though the submissions made by the assessee in writing in support of the same are duly reproduced by him in his impugned orders. Since this preliminary issue challenging the validity of reopening of assessments goes to the root of the matter and the same has not been decided by the ld. CIT(Appeals) vide his impugned orders, I consider it fair and proper and in the interest of justice to remit this matter to the ld. CIT(Appeals) for deciding the preliminary issue raised by the assessee by way of additional ground in all the three years under consideration on merit after giving the assessee proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard.

The other common issue involved in these appeals of the assessee relating to the additions made on account of bogus transactions is kept open with the liberty to the assessee to agitate the same depending upon the decision of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on the preliminary issue.

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on April 13, 2018.