A SIRKAR CO. JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA V. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 1718/KOL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves A Sirkar Co. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, contesting an ex-parte order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, regarding the Assessment Year 2017-18. The primary contention was the addition of unexplained money amounting to \\u20b992,57,000, alleged to be deposited during the demonetization period, classified as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The appellant argued that the cash balance from the previous year, which was accepted in a prior assessment, was not considered by the AO. Both parties agreed that the matter required re-examination at the AO's level due to the ex-parte nature of the previous proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 25383 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JIENDRA KANTILAL SURTI
• Assessee Lawyers: S SOMNATH GHOSH; SARNATH GHOSH; ARS
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 143(1); 68

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA No.1718/KOL/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) A Sirkar Co. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. 171/1A, Rash Behari Avenue, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700019 Vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 12(1), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700069 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AACCA3682P Assessee by : S/shri Somnath Ghosh & Sarnath Ghosh, ARs Revenue by : Shri Jiendra Kantilal Surti, DR Date of hearing: 20.03.2025 Date of pronouncement : 25.03.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 22.09.2023 for the AY 2017-18. 02. We observe from the record file that there is a delay of 266 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for condonation petition is filed. It was stated in the petition that the appellate order was sent on the e-mail of the person concerned however the person concerned did not access the same and it was only became know to the assessee while finalizing the accounts of the assessee when the assessee accessed the IT website for reconciliation of Form 26 AS/AIS with the books of accounts. Thereafter the steps were immediately taken to file the appeal and was finally filed with a delay of 266 Page | 2 ITA No.1718/KOL/2024 A Sirkar Co. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2017-18 days delay. After hearing both the sides and taking into account the condonation petition , we find the reasons to be bonafide and sufficient and consequently condone the delay of 266 days in filing the appeal. 03. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment as well as the appellate order was passed by the ld. CIT (A) ex-parte, without considering the merits of the case. The ld. AR submitted that the addition was made by the ld. AO on account of unexplained money of ₹92,57,000/-, which was stated to be deposited during demonetization period and added by the ld. AO as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The ld. AR also submitted that the cash balance disclosed in its balance sheet in the return of income filed for A.Y. 2016-17 which was duly accepted by the AO u/s 143(1) of the Act was even not taking inot account by the AO. The ld. AR submitted that the issue is required to be verified and examined at the level of the AO and the same may be restored to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to the ld. AO that the cash available as opening balance on the basis of return of income filed for A.Y. 2016-17, may be allowed to deducted from the total cash available during the year and also an opportunity may be allowed to the assesse to explain the same. 04. The ld. DR on the other hand fairly agreed that the issue is required to be examined at the end of the ld. AO as the proceedings were ex-parte before the authorities below. 05. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the appeal has been decided ex- parte by CIT (A). similarly by ld. AO has framed the ex-parte assessment even without taking into account the opening cash in Page | 3 ITA No.1718/KOL/2024 A Sirkar Co. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2017-18 hand, which was very much available with the ld. AO in the ITR filed by assessee for A.Y. 2016-17. Therefore, under these circumstances, we deem it fit and appropriate to restore the issue to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to examine the same and decide the issue denovo after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to state that opening cash in hand has to be reduced while calculating the cash if any to be added. 06. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25.03.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 25.03.2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata "