A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA V. RAJA UDYOG (P) LTD., BARRACKPORE, NORTH 24-PARGANAS

MA 46/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves two Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) filed by the Revenue against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which had deleted certain additions made under sections 69C and 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The Revenue contended that the ITAT had erred in deleting these additions based on precedents that were not applicable due to subsequent Supreme Court judgments. The tribunal considered the arguments and found that the Revenue's applications did not merit reconsideration of the ITAT's decisions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775056 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 02-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Pr.CIT Vs. Abhiser Buidwell (P) Ltd., Checkmate Services (P) Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 147; 69C

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No. 45/Kol/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 1703/Kol/2024) (Assessment Year 2015-16) & MA No. 46/Kol/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 1704/Kol/2024) (Assessment Year 2016-17) ACIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 110, Shanti Palli, Kolkata - 700107 ………………………………Applicant vs. Raja Udyog (P) Ltd., Sukchar Girja, 16F, Barrackpore Trunk Road, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal - 700115 [PAN: AACCR0764P] ..….............................. Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate Department represented by : S.B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 29.08.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 02.09.2025 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. These are an MA’s filed by the Revenue dated 02.04.2025. These MA’s have been filed against the ITA No. 1703 & 1704/Kol/2024 for AY’s 2015- 16 and 2016-17 respectively. The grounds of the MA for both the appeals may be extracted: MA No. 45/Kol/2025 “i) In the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble ITAT has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.9,81,193/- u/s 69C of the Income tax Act, 1961 by recording in para no. 7 of the appellate order that \"the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision in its own case for earlier assessment year vide Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA Nos. 45 & 46/Kol/2025 Raja Udyog (P) Ltd. order dated 30.07.2024 passed in IT(SS)A No. 43/Kol/2024 for AY 2017-18, wherein, the Tribunal on an identical facts and circumstances and relating to some search action has deleted the addition.....\". It is pertinent to mention here that the department has filed Miscellaneous Application (MA) on 27.11.2024 before the Hon'ble ITAT against the order dated 30.07.2024 passed in IT(SS)A No. 43/Kol/2024 for AY 2017-18. There is clear mentioning in the assessment order that there was seized tally data and diaries on the basis of which the Assessing Officer of searched person drew his satisfaction quantifying the income to be covered u/s 153C in the hands of the assessee. The said seized tally data contains a file \"Cash book 15-16' having an entry of cash receipt of Rs.9,81,113/- by M/s Sunny Chemicals Pvt Ltd from the assessee. Non- mentioning of specific reference of the seized material in the assessment order could have been considered as bonafide human error. The Department deserves a fair opportunity to remove the difficulties as the same opportunity has been provided to the assessee to set right double addition, if any, on account of provision for gratuity. Thus, injustice is caused to the Revenue for not providing equal opportunity. (ii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble ITAT has erred in deleting the disallowance of (i) Rs.1,06,931/- made u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Income tax Act, 1961 in A.Y. 2015-16 vide ITA No. 1703/Kol/2024 and (ii) Rs.11,60,807/- made u/s 36(1)(va) r.wis 2(24)(x) of the Income tax Act, 1961 in A.Y. 2016-17 vide ITA No. 1704/Kol/2024. The additions have been deleted by the Hon'ble ITAT in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Abhiser Buidwell (P) Ltd.[2023] 149 taxmann.com 399(SC). Despite there is judicial pronouncement of Apex Court on this specific issue in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) dated 12.10.2022. (iii) That the Department craves the leave to make any addition, alteration, modification and remodeling or withdrawing of the grounds.” ITA No. 46/Kol/2025 “(i) In the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble ITAT has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.9,81,193/- u/s 69C of the Income tax Act, 1961 by recording in para no. 7 of the appellate order that \"the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision in its own case for earlier assessment year vide order dated 30.07.2024 passed in IT(SS)A No. 43/Kol/2024 for AY 2017-18, wherein, the Tribunal on an identical facts and circumstances and relating to some search action has deleted the addition....\". It is pertinent to mention here that the department has filed Miscellaneous Application (MA) on 27.11.2024 before the Hon'ble ITAT against the order dated 30.07.2024 passed in IT(SS)A No. 43/Kol/2024 for AY 2017-18. There is clear mentioning in the assessment order that there was seized tally data and diaries on the basis of which the Assessing Officer of searched person drew his satisfaction quantifying the income to be covered u/s 153C in the hands of the assessee. The said seized tally data contains a file 'Cash book 15-16' having an entry of cash receipt of Rs.9,81,113/- by M/s Sunny Chemicals Pvt Ltd from the assessee. Non- mentioning of specific reference of the seized material in the assessment order could have been considered as bonafide human error. The Department deserves a fair opportunity to remove the difficulties as the same opportunity has been provided to the assessee to set right double addition, if any, on account of provision for gratuity. Thus, injustice is caused to the Revenue for not providing equal opportunity. (ii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble ITAT has erred in deleting Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA Nos. 45 & 46/Kol/2025 Raja Udyog (P) Ltd. the disallowance of (i) Rs.1,06,931/- made u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Income tax Act, 1961 in A.Y. 2015-16 vide ITA No. 1703/Kol/2024 and (ii) Rs 11,60,807/- made u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Income tax Act, 1961 in A.Y. 2016-17 vide ITA No. 1704/Kol/2024. The additions have been deleted by the Hon'ble ITAT in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Abhisr Buldwell (P) Ltd. [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399(SC). Despite there is judicial pronouncement of Apex Court on this specific issue in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) dated 12.10.2022. (iii) That the Department craves the leave to make any addition, alteration, modification and remodeling or withdrawing of the grounds.” 2. Before us, the Ld. DR stated that the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. reported in 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC), would have overriding effect over the case of Abhisar Buildwell (149 taxmann.com 399 (SC]. 2.1 The Ld. AR pointed out that accordingly there was an error in the ITAT’s order which deserves to be rectified. 2.2 The Ld. AR, on the other hand, supported the findings given in the ITAT’s orders. 3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records. It deserves to be held that once it is established that the case of M/s Abhisar Buildwell (supra) was to be applied then there could be no claim of any other issue surviving for adjudication. In any case, the Revenue could have taken recourse to the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in case they felt that some additions were due which were not having any nexus with the seized material. 4. In result, both the MAs are dismissed as non-maintainable. Order pronounced on 02.09.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (George Mathan) (Sanjay Awasthi) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 02.09.2025 AK, Sr. P.S. Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA Nos. 45 & 46/Kol/2025 Raja Udyog (P) Ltd. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR) //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches Printed from counselvise.com "