Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SRI SANJAY GARG & SRI SANJAY AWASTHI
order
: October 18th, 2024 ORDER
Per Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member:
In this case, the Registry of ITAT has pointed out a delay of 259 days, which has been requested to be condoned as under: “I, Pramod Tekriwal, son of Chandi Prasad Tekriwal, residing at 110, Southern Avenue, Sarat Bose Road S.O, Kolkata, West Bengal- 700029, do hereby solemnly affirm as follows: 1. Filing of Appeal: An appeal was filed on February 3, 2017, for the assessment year 2011-12 before the CIT(A), NF AC against the order passed by the Assessing Officer, Ward 30(4). Kolkata on January 04, 2017, under Sections 143(3) and 147 of the Income Tax Act.
I.T.A. No.: 728/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pramod Kumar Tekriwal.
2. Non-Receipt of Order: The order passed under Section 250 on May 25, 2023, was not revived by me via postal authorities, nor did I receive any communication regarding it from our counsel, Mr. Ankit Luharuka.
Counsel Confirmation: Counsel Mr. Ankit Luharuka has confirmed that he also did not receive any order passed under Section 250 for the assessment year 2011-12 in his mail.
Hosting of Order: I was unaware that the aforementioned CIT(A) order was hosted on the assessee's income tax portal.
Download of Order: The CIT(A) order dated May 25, 2023, was downloaded from the income tax portal on April 4, 2024.
Unawareness of Hosting: I affirm that I was not aware of any such order being hosted on the income tax portal.
7. Delay in Appeal Submission: The delay in submitting the appeal before the ITAT, Kolkata against the CIT(A) order dated May 25, 2023, was bona fide and reasonable.
Prayer for Condonation: I respectfully request & pray that any delay in submitting the appeal be condoned, and that the appeal be accepted for adjudication.” 1.1. Considering the averments made in the said affidavit, the delay is hereby condoned and this appeal is admitted for adjudication.
2. In this case, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ld. 'AO') passed an order dated 04.01.2017 through which certain additions have been made on account of alleged bogus purchases, ostensibly on the basis of information received from the Income Tax Investigation Wing. It is seen that during the course of assessment proceedings the ld. AO issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') to as many as 24 parties for verifying purchases, but was unable to obtain confirmation from any of them. The ld. AO found the explanations offered by the assessee inadequate and proceeded to make the impugned additions. 2.1. Before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as ld. 'CIT(A)'], the appellant did not make any compliance of the notices issued for hearing of the case. In light of this the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the ld. AO.
Page 2 of 4 I.T.A. No.: 728/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pramod Kumar Tekriwal. 2.2. Thereafter, aggrieved with this action, the appellant is before us with the following grounds of appeal:
“1. For that the reassessment proceedings itself being bad in law.
That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that, there was no tangible, relevant, specific and reliable material on record on the basis of which, it could be held that, there was any reason to believe with the learned Assessing Officer that income of the appellant had escaped assessment and, in view thereof, the proceedings initiated were illegal, untenable and therefore, unsustainable. The reasons as noted by the Assessing Officer were mechanical on information received from Investigation Wing. The satisfaction of the Assessing Officer was borrowed satisfaction.
3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in sustaining the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act and, completion of assessment u/s 147/143(3) of the Act which were without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed as such.
4. For that the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition of full purchases to the tune of Rs 2,75,73,425/-, ignoring the corresponding sales. The addition is against the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. For that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is liable to be quashed and the appellant be given relief as prayed for.
6. For that the order the Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, illegal and bad in law.
That the appellant craves to add or amend any grounds of appeal
on or before the date of hearing.”
3. Before us the ld. A/R challenged not only the reopening of the case but also the fact that addition was allegedly made on the basis of uncorroborated material. 3.1. The ld. A/R relied on the finding of ld. AO and stated that if the purchasers could not be identified then the ld. AO was justified in his actions.
4. We have carefully considered the arguments and the material before us. It is felt that the appellant deserves a second chance to prove his bona fide regarding the veracity of purchases. In light of this fact, this matter is remanded back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue. The appellant
Page 3 of 4 I.T.A. No.: 728/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pramod Kumar Tekriwal. would do well to present his case before him, with whatever material he deems fit. In light of the discussion above, this matter is restored to the file of ld. CIT(A).