SUBHENDU ROY,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1621/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 October 2024AY 2018-19Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member)2 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as no justification was provided in the assessment order. Therefore, the addition was ordered to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 98,173/- claimed as club expenses without providing any reasoning. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition mechanically.

What were the issues?

Whether an addition made without any reasoning by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) is sustainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumar

Assessment Year: 2018-19 Subhendu Roy…………....………………………… ........................……Appellant 93, Park Street, West Bengal-700016. [PAN: ACYPR0191F] vs. ACIT, Delhi………………................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Raj Singha Maji, Staff, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Abhijit Adhikari, JCIT-Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : October 07, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : October 07, 2024 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 07.06.2024 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

2.

Shri Raj Singha Maji, Staff of the assessee, has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee and an adjournment letter has been filed, however, a perusal of the case file reveals that there is only a small issue involved in this appeal, which can be decided after hearing the ld. DR.

3.

A perusal of the assessment order reveals that in this case, limited scrutiny assessment was carried out, wherein, it has been categorically written by the Assessing Officer that no additions are made and the assessment of income is done as per computation sheet’. However, while computing the income, the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs.98173/-, which was claimed by the assessee as club expenses. No reasoning, whatsoever, has been given by the Assessing Officer for making the impugned addition.

4.

Even, the ld. CIT(A) has also confirmed the addition in a mechanical manner without application of mind.

5.

Since, in the assessment order, no additions have been made and neither there is any justification given for making the impugned, hence, the same is not sustainable and is accordingly ordered to be deleted.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

Kolkata, the 7th October, 2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →