SIDDHARTH ENCLAVE PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO , WARD- 9(1), KOLKATA

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘एसएमसी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA �ी संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य एवं �ी �गर�श अ�वाल, लेखा सद�य के सम� Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.1302/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Siddharth Enclave Pvt. Ltd…..…..…......................…...……………....Appellant Dalmia House, 4, Madan Chatterjee Lane, Kolkata- 700007. [PAN: AAKCS6377D] vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata………………..............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances by: Shri Manoj Tiwari, AR, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Bibekananda Madhu, JCIT-Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : January 30, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : January 30, 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 04.10.2023 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. In this case, the addition has been made by the Assessing Officer and further confirmed by the CIT(A) of Rs.4,45,337/- with the allegation that the said amount was received by the assessee from various circuitous transactions originated from one M/s Neelkanth Trading Co. The Assessing Officer received an information from the Investigation Wing that the director of the said M/s Neelkanth Trading Co., Shri Sanjiw Kumar Singh was in fact an entry operator and he had provided

I.T.A. No.1302/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Siddharth Enclave Pvt. Ltd. accommodation entries by moving the funds through different layers which ultimately reached to the beneficiaries. The name of the assessee was also mentioned as one of the beneficiaries of the amount of Rs.4,45,337/-. The case of the assessee was, therefore, reopened and assessment was carried out u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 3. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee took a categorical stand that it had not received any amount, whatsoever, from any person amounting to Rs.4,45,337/-. The assessee also furnished bank accounts to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer without pointing out as to which of the receipt/entry in the accounts of the assessee was suspicious and without correlating any receipt of the amount with the alleged accommodation entry, simply made the addition observing that since it was the report of the investigation wing that the assessee was a beneficiary, therefore, the addition was warranted. 4. The assessee reiterated its submissions before the CIT(A), however, the ld. CIT(A) mechanically confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer without considering any of the submissions made by the assessee especially to the effect that the assessee did not receive any such accommodation entry. Being aggrieved, the assessee come in appeal before us. 5. The ld. DR could not point out any entry in the books of account of the assessee to correlate or to prove the bald allegation of the department. This addition has been made/confirmed by the lower authorities without application of mind and without going through the records, which, in our view, is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is accordingly ordered to be deleted.

I.T.A. No.1302/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Siddharth Enclave Pvt. Ltd.

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches