INTELLIGENT INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1907/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 December 2024AY 2012-2013Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons to be sufficient and bonafide. The Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication (denovo) after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a significant delay due to the retirement and subsequent illness of their tax consultant. The appeal concerned additions made by the AO for bogus project expenses and undisclosed income from maintenance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)'s findings on bogus project expenses and undisclosed maintenance income were based on a proper examination of the evidence, and whether the assessee was given adequate opportunity to present their case.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Saini, AR
For Respondent: Shri Vineet Kumar, DR
Hearing: 11.12.2024Pronounced: 16.12.2024

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 26.10.2023 for the AY 2012-13.

2.

The assessee has challenged the order on four grounds. There are two effective issues involved, one is against the confirmation of addition of ₹46,59,093/- as made by the ld. AO on account of bogus project expenses and second against the confirmation of ₹6,01,000/- as made by the ld. AO on account of undisclosed income from maintenance.

3.

At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 258 days for filing the appeal for which assessee has moved a condonation petition along with affidavit of Shri Pradeep Kumar Sureka son of Bishwambhar

4.

After hearing both the sides on the issues involved and going through the records available before us, we find that the ld. CIT (A) has given a clear-cut finding that the assessee failed to explain the project expenses as well as any possible explanation for unexplained income of ₹6,01,000/- which are added by the ld. AO to the income of the assessee. We note that the assessee has furnished the details / voucher before the appellate authority in annexure 13, which according to the appellate authority was not corresponding to the year under consideration. Considering these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the issue needs to be examined at the level of the ld. CIT (A) so that the adjudication could be made denovo.

5.

After taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and evidences on record, we accordingly, restore the issue to the file of

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16.12.2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →