DREAMLAND VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA V. ITO, WARD-6(1), KOLKATA

ITA 468/KOL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Dreamland Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, contesting an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The primary contention was the non-compliance with summons issued under section 131 of the Income Tax Act, which required the personal appearance of the directors of the assessee company and the subscribing companies. The assessee argued that certain documents could not be furnished at earlier stages and requested another opportunity to present these documents and evidence. The Departmental Representative did not oppose this request, leaving the decision to the bench's discretion. The Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the AO for a thorough re-examination of the presented evidence and testimonies.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474009 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUSANTA SAHA
• Assessee Lawyers: S. JHAJARIA
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 131

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA No.468/KOL/2024 (Assessment Year:2012-13) Dreamland Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. 83/85, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700001 Vs. ITO, Ward-6(1) Aayakar Bhawan P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700069 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCD8915F Assessee by : Shri S. Jhajaria, AR Revenue by : Shri Susanta Saha, DR Date of hearing: 29.01.2025 Date of pronouncement : 01.04.2025 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 18.02.2024 for the AY 2012-13. 02. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that certain documents could not be furnished before the ld. AO nor before the ld. CIT(A) and the summons issued u/s 131 of the Act for personal appearance of the Directors of the assessee company as well as directors of the subscribing companies could not be complied. The ld. AO as well as the ld. CIT (A) has given a clear-cut finding on these Page | 2 ITA No.468 /KOL/2024 Dreamland Vinimay Pvt. Ltd A.Y. 2012-13 two issues in their respective orders. The ld. Counsel for the assessee therefore prayed that the assessee may be granted one more opportunity before the ld. AO to furnish these evidences and to produce the directors of the subscribing companies as well as the directors of the assessee company so that the issue could be decided denovo as per facts and law. 03. The ld. DR on the other hand did not oppose the arguments of the ld. AR and left the issue to the wisdom of the bench. 04. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that there was partial compliance on the part of the assessee before the AO as well as before the ld. CIT (A) as certain documents were not filed. Besides, we note that the summons issued u/s 131 of the Act were not complied. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the appeal needs to be restored to the file of the ld. AO so that the necessary documents/ evidences could be examined and the directors of the assessee company as well as the directors of the subscribing companies could be examined on oath. Accordingly, we restore the appeal to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to decide the appeal de-novo after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Liberty is granted to the assessee to produce evidences/ additional evidences before the ld. Assessing Officer. The assessee is also directed to produce the directors of the investing companies as well as its own directors before the ld. AO for examination. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Page | 3 ITA No.468 /KOL/2024 Dreamland Vinimay Pvt. Ltd A.Y. 2012-13 05. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 01.04.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 01.04.2025 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 "