BITTU ARORA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-29(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'सी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री अधिकेश बिर्जी, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं श्री धिरीश अग्रवाल, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 1144/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Bittu Arora (L/H Pawan Arora)...…………..................................Appellant [PAN: AFWPA 8970 N] Vs. ITO, Ward-29(4), Kolkata......................................................Respondent Appearances: Assessee represented by: Sh. A.K. Tibrewal, AR. Department represented by: Sh. Raman Garg, Addl. CIT. Date of concluding the hearing : February 27th, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : February 29th, 2024 ORDER Per Bench: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [in brevity ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 23.08.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the ‘Act’) for assessment year 2014-15. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ITO, Ward-29(4), Kolkata (in brevity the ‘AO’) passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 28.12.2016. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:

I.T.A. No.: 1144/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Bittu Arora (L/H Pawan Arora). “1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Ld. CIT(A), NFAC) erred in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant Assessee without allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing. 2. That Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.3,94,067 allegedly claimed u/s 24(b) of the Act although the same was not claimed by the Appellant Assessee while computing the income of Rs.4,95,900 declared in the return of income filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. 3. That Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.30,850 made by the Assessing Officer, which sum included Rs. 17,380 representing payment of Wealth Tax although the said sum of Rs. 17,380 was not claimed as deduction while computing the income of Rs.4,95,900 declared in the return of income filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,183 representing depreciation although the said sum of Rs. 1,183 was not claimed as deduction while computing the income of Rs.4,95,900 declared in the return of income filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A), FNAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,59,49,535 made by the Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 although the said provisions were not applicable to the facts of the Appellant Assessee. 6. That the Appellant Assessee craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and/ or rescind any or all of the above grounds.” 3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee was assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act and the additions were made related to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,59,49,525/- and also the small addition was made related to interest and bank charges amounting to Rs. 30,850/- and difference of claim u/s 24(b) of the Act amounting to Rs. 3,94,067/- with the total income of the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of ld. AO and passed an ex-parte order. Being dissatisfied with the appeal order, the assessee filed an appeal before us. 4. Ld. A/R submitted a written submission and filed new evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 and the assessee was not able to file all the documents before ld. CIT(A) during the appellate proceeding. All the additional evidence are duly accepted.

Page 2 of 4

I.T.A. No.: 1144/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Bittu Arora (L/H Pawan Arora). 5. Ld. D/R had not made any objection about the acceptance of the additional evidence of the assessee. Accordingly, these additional evidences are duly accepted. As ld. CIT(A) has not allowed reasonable opportunity to the assessee, the appeal order passed ex-parte without considering the facts and grounds. So, ld. A/R prayed to remand back the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A). 6. Ld. D/R argued and had not made any strong objection against the submission of the assessee. 7. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available in the record. The assessee filed additional evidence which were not able to file before ld. CIT(A) and all the documents are duly accepted by the Bench. We remit back the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) as the appeal order was passed ex-parte. We do not express our view related to addition made by the ld. AO in the assessment order as that will influence the process of the appeal in set aside proceeding. The evidence and the documents filed by the assessee which are before the Bench, is directed to file before ld. CIT(A) and the same should be accepted by ld. CIT(A) and pass a speaking order by allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, ITA No. 1144/KOL/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th February, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- [Girish Agrawal] [Anikesh Banerjee] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 29.02.2024 Bidhan (P.S.)

Page 3 of 4

I.T.A. No.: 1144/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Bittu Arora (L/H Pawan Arora). Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Bittu Arora (L/H Pawan Arora), 18th, 19th & 20th Floor, Upohar High Luxory Tower, The Condoville Premises No. 2052, Chakgaria, Kolkata-700 094. 2. ITO, Ward-29(4), Kolkata. 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. //True copy // By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata

Page 4 of 4