M/S. COLOUR REALTORS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
ITA 31/KOL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2023AY 2013-2014
Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 31/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Colour Realtors Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward- 85, Bentick Street Vs 2(2), Kolkata 5Th Floor Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcc9668G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.M. Roy, A/R Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 16/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Order Of The Ld Cit(A) Is Unjustified & Bad In Law As Ld Cit(A) Has Failed To Fulfil Its Statutory Obligations By Not Considering The Facts & Merits Of The Case While Disposing Off The Appeal. 2. For That The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing The Order Without Giving Any Opportunity To The Assessee For Making Its Submission & Also Failed To Serve The Notices On The Assessee Since No Intimation Of The Notices Was Sent To Assessee Over E-Mail Or Sms. 3. For That Ld. Ao Erred In Treating The Genuine Purchases Of The Assessee As Bogus & Making Addition Of Rs. 49,26,85,000 As Bogus Purchase U/S 68. For That Ld. Ao Erred In Treating The Amount Of Sundry Creditors Of Rs. 14,16,17,433 As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68. 4. For That Ld. Ao Erred In Invoking The Provisions Of Section 14A Read With Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & In Disallowing An Amount Of Rs. 22,150. 5. For That The Appellant Craves Leaves To Add, Alter Or Amend Any Ground Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”
For Appellant: Shri K.M. Roy, A/RFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT D/R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 68
bogus purchase u/s 68. For that Ld. AO erred in treating the amount of Sundry Creditors of Rs. 14,16,17,433 as unexplained Cash Credit u/s 68. 4. For that Ld. AO erred in invoking the provisions of Section 14A
