ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA V. PARAGON HEIGHT PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

ITA 2158/KOL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals filed by the revenue against the orders of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the Assessment Years 2016-2017 & 2017-2018. The primary issue was the treatment of unexplained loans taken by the assessee, Paragon Height Private Limited, which the Assessing Officer initially treated as bogus. The CIT(A) had deleted the addition, accepting the assessee's documentary proofs and claims of repayment. However, the revenue challenged this decision, citing discrepancies in the addresses of the creditors and the timing of the loan repayments. The Tribunal, considering the recent repayments and the need for further verification of the creditors, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711891 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Other Referred Cases: Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. [2023] 454 ITR 212 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJIB KUMAR PAUL
• Assessee Lawyers: AKSHAY RINGASIA
• Keywords: Bogus

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “एस.एम.सी” न्यायपीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य क े समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.2158 & 2159/KOL/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-2017 & 2017-2018) ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata Vs Paragon Height Private Limited, 101, Siddha Point, Park Street, Kolkata, West Bengal-700107 PAN No. : AAECP 6563 G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Sr.DR नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Akshay Ringasia, CA सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 22/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 22/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R These two appeals filed by the revenue against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 27.08.2024 for the Assessment Years 2016-2017 & 2017-2018. 2. Shri Akshay Ringasia, ld AR appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, ld.Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. 3. Both appeals of the revenue are barred by 02 days each. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, delay of 02 days in filing both the appeals by the revenue is condoned and both appeals are admitted for hearing. 4. It was submitted by the ld.DR that there was a search on the premises of the assessee on 07.11.2017. The assessments in both the cases came to be completed on 31.12.2019 wherein the Assessing Officer Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2158&2159/KOL/2024 2 has treated the unexplained loans taken by the assessee as bogus. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee has filed all documentary proofs and that the loans have already been repaid subsequently. It was submitted by the ld. Sr. DR that the Assessing Officer sent his Inspector for verification of the addresses of the creditors and such persons did not exist on record. It was further submitted that before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee claims that loans have been repaid. It was the submission that it was only just before the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has repaid the loans that too without any interest. It was the submission that the orders of the ld. CIT(A) in both the cases is liable to be reversed. 5. It was alternative prayer that as the assessee has repaid the loans that too in 2024, the assessee could be directed to produce the creditors before the ld. Assessing Officer for examination. 6. In reply, ld.AR submitted that for the assessment year 2016-2017, the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., reported in [2023] 454 ITR 212 (SC) would apply. It was further submitted that the documentary proofs have also been produced before the lower authorities. It was the prayer that the order of the ld. CIT(A) in both the cases is liable to be upheld. 7. I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case for A.Y.2016-2017, the assessee has not raised the issue of applicability of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., referred to supra before the ld.CIT(A) nor has the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2158&2159/KOL/2024 3 assessee raised his defense under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules before the Tribunal. Therefore, the claim of the assessee that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., referred to supra, would apply, cannot be considered in the absence of specific ground being raised before the Tribunal. 8. Coming to the merits of the case, a perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that the ld. CIT(A) had been carried away with the fact that documents have been produced to prove the credits. The primary condition that is raised by the AO is that the addresses of the creditors are not correct. The creditors are not available at the address provided either. Ld. CIT(A) has also recognized that the loans have been repaid while disposing off the appeal of the assessee. This being so, I am of the view that in the interest of justice, issues in both the appeals are to be restored to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for readjudication as the assessee has repaid the loans recently. The assessee obviously has correct details of the creditors. The assessee shall produce the creditors for examination before the Assessing Officer. If the assessee fails to produce the creditors before the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer is at liberty to draw adverse inference. This is a case where assessee has repaid the loan without interest after a long time and the details of the creditors are known to the assessee. In these circumstances, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2158&2159/KOL/2024 4 9. In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 22/07/2025. Sd/- (जाजज माथन) (GEORGE MATHAN) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कोलकाता Kolkata; ददनाांक Dated 22/07/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant- 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 5. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गार्ज फाईल / Guard file. सत्यापपत प्रयत //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "