BALAJICONSTRUCTION (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-5(4),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

Present for: Appellant by : Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR Respondent by : Shri Anup Biswas, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 21.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024 O R D E R

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

“1 That the Order passed u/s 250 of I.T. Act, 1961 is bad in law as well as on facts of the case. 2. That the Hon'ble CIT(A), NFAC erred in law as well as on facts of the case by not quashing the Order passed u/s 143(3)/147 on the fact that the reasons recorded for reopening the case u/s 148 was erroneous and non­existent. 3. That the Hon'ble CIT(A), NFAC erred in law as well as on facts of the case by confirming the additions in respect of alleged amount received from M/s Balaji Construction Pvt. Ltd., AY 2011-12 SSP Vyapaar to the tune of Rs 2000000/­ even though no such amount was received in the bank account of the assessee company.

4. That the Hon'ble CIT(A), NFAC erred in law as well as on facts of the case by confirming the additions in respect of alleged amount received from M/s SSP Vyapaar to the tune of Rs 2000000/­ by invoking the provisions of Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 5. That the appellant craves to leave, add, amend or adduce any of the grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings.”

3. Assessee filed its return of income on 31.01.2012 reporting total income of Rs.2,709/-. Case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act for which statutory notices were issued and served on the assessee. According to the Ld. AO, an amount of Rs. 20 lakh to which the information pertained for the purpose of reopening remained unexplained and undisclosed. From the perusal of order of assessment, Ld. AO has noted in a very vague and general term that reasons recorded for reopening of the case were discussed and explained. Assessee had furnished statement of accounts which were examined and verified. Ld. AO observed that the assessee filed bank statement pertaining to State Bank of India in which no transaction took place. According to him, on verification of the documents, it was found that the transaction was made on a different bank account namely, Indus Ind Bank, Burrabazar Branch. According to Ld. AO, bank account of Indus Ind Bank, Burabazar, Kolkata remained undisclosed in the return filed by the assessee. He thus, completed the assessment by making the said addition of Rs.20 lakh.

3.1. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), a written submission was furnished on 24.09.2019 which is mentioned in para 5.1 of the order of Ld. CIT(A). Appeal of the assessee was dismissed by observing that assessee does not wish to pursue the appeal and thus, was dismissed on account of non- prosecution without taking into consideration the written submission

Balaji Construction Pvt. Ltd., AY 2011-12 furnished by the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.