SHRISTI VINCOM(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, HON’BLE
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The present appeals are directed at the instance of the assessee against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, (hereinafter the “ld. CIT(A)”) even dt. 27/06/2023, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issues on merits raised in both these appeals deserve to be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for the reason that firstly for the appellate proceedings for Assessment Year 2013-14, the ld. CIT(A) has not considered the remand report given by the ld. Assessing Officer dated 12/04/2019 as a result of which various facts in the remand report, have not been considered by the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the issues and Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shristi Vincom Pvt. Ltd. secondly since similar issues are raised for Assessment Year 2014-15 and the impugned orders are evenly dated and the ld. CIT(A) has taken similar view on such issue for both the years, therefore, it is prayed that the issues on merits for impugned Assessment Years may please be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. On the other hand, the ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the orders of both the lower authorities.
We have heard rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. We notice that the assessee which is a private limited company has been scrutinised and order u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act for Assessment Year 2013-14 has been framed on 31/10/2017 and for Assessment Year 2014-15 u/s 143(3) of the Act on 13/12/2016. One of the common addition is towards alleged bogus loss from purchase and sale of shares. For both the years, the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) and the impugned orders have been framed on 26/03/2023 and the assessee failed to get any relief. In other words, the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2013-14, is verbatim appearing in the impugned order for Assessment Year 2014-15. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has brought to our attention that a remand report was called for by the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. Assessing Officer filed such report on 12/04/2019 and the same was regarding the loss claimed on purchase and sale of shares of M/s. Shreenath Textiles and M/s. Blue Circle Ltd. It is further brought to our notice that for impugned year, the said remand report dt. 12/04/2019, has not been discussed/considered by the ld. CIT(A). Rather in para 3 & 4 of the Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shristi Vincom Pvt. Ltd. impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) observes that no additional evidence was filed by the appellant but, on the other hand, the remand report dt. 12/04/2019 is available. It seems that after filing of the appeal by the assessee against the assessment order in the year 2017, and prior to the passing of the impugned order on 27/06/2023, there is a period of almost six years. It is quite possible that the appellate proceedings might have been initiated by a particular Commissioner (Appeals) but it did not culminate to final order and then again appeal has been decided by another Commissioner (Appeals). It appears at paper book page 8 that the ld. Assessing Officer has sent the remand report to ld. CIT(A)-24, Kolkata but the final order has been framed by National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi. So, the record clearly indicates that some proceedings were carried out with other Commissioner (Appeals) but the order could not be framed and there were certain additional evidence which the assessee had filed and to which remand report has been called for. It is also discernible that common issue of bogus loss from purchase and sale of shares has been dealt by the ld. CIT(A) but such remand report for Assessment Year 2013-14 which deals with the very same issue of short term capital loss/trading loss failed to be considered by the ld. CIT(A). Since the decision of ld. CIT(A) is similar for both the years, we being fair to both the parties and in the interest of justice, restore all the issues raised on merits in the instant appeals to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and such proceedings should be carried out after considering the remand report given by the ld. Assessing Officer and other details, if any, and then decide in Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shristi Vincom Pvt. Ltd. accordance with law. Needless to mention that, the assessee be compliant, shall not take adjournment and should appear on the very first date of hearing unless otherwise for a bonafide cause and furnish the details in support of its grounds. Ld. Assessing Officer should ensure that the assessee is provided with reasonable opportunity of being heard.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 20th June, 2024 at Kolkata. (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kolkata, Dated 20/06/2024 *SC SrPs आदेश क" "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Assessee
""यथ" / The Respondent 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयु" अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, कोलकाता/DR,ITAT, Kolkata, 6. गाड" फाई/ Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
