FABTECH,KOLKATA V. ITO, WARD 30(1), KOLKATA

ITA 198/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Fabtech, the appellant, who contested the addition of Rs. 98,83,992/- to their income for the assessment year 2015-16, which was treated as income by the Assessing Officer but was actually an advance from Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd. The appellant argued that this amount was already offered for taxation in the subsequent year, leading to double taxation. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument and remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841168 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member ITA No.198/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Fabtech……………...…….....……..………………….……….……….……Appellant 102A, Ballygunge Place, Kol-700019. [PAN: AADFF1311L] vs. ITO, Ward-30(1), Kolkata…...……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Ankit Jalan, AR, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Aditya Bikram, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : February 04, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : February 24, 2026 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.11.2024 of the NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2015– 16. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed Income Tax Return for the year under consideration declaring a total income of Rs.4,27,000/-. The case of the assessee is selected for scrutiny and accordingly notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and in response, the AR of the assessee appeared and filed relevant documents and submissions. The Assessing Officer found that the submissions of the assessee are not tenable and an amount of Rs.98,83,992/- which is alleged to be received during the financial year 2014-15 from Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd. disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.198/Kol/2025 Fabtech 2 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) wherein the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before us. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR challenges the very impugned order thereby submitting that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 98,83,992/- made by the Assessing Officer by wrongly treating the advance received from M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co Ltd as income in the relevant assessment year and also the Ld. CIT(A) did not consider the fact that the assessee had already offered the entire amount of Rs.98,83,992/- for taxation in the subsequent year, therefore, the addition would result double taxation. The ld. AR further submits that the said payment of Rs.98,83,992/- was received in F.Y 2014-15 and TDS of Rs.2,25,615/- has also been claimed in his return. The ld. AR during the assessment proceedings submitted all the relevant details such as bills, books of accounts, vouchers etc and the assessee. The ld. AR before us has also submitted the following documents: 5. Contrary to that, the Ld. DR supports the impugned order. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.198/Kol/2025 Fabtech 3 6. We have considered the submissions of the counsels of the respective parties and perused the material available on record. We find that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee produced bills, books of accounts, vouchers, tax audit report, bank statement etc. and the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 98,83,992/- by treating the advance received from M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co Ltd as income of the assessee without rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee. We also find that the assessee had already offered the said sum of Rs.98,83,992/- for taxation in the subsequent year. We note that the said payment of Rs.98,83,992/- was received in F.Y 2014-15 and shown as advance in the year and the said advance was accounted as income in the next year. Hence, the said addition of Rs.98,83,992/- would amount to double taxation in the hands of the assessee. It is important to mention here that before us, the ld. AR has submitted the reconciliation statement for the A.Y 2015-16 which is as under: 7. Considering the above discussion, we find substance in the argument of the ld. AR that the issue should be reverified by the AO in the light of above contention. Accordingly, we remitted the file to the file of AO for fresh verification in the light of above contention made by the assessee and pass a fresh order without being prejudice to this order. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.198/Kol/2025 Fabtech 4 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Kolkata, the 24th February, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 24.02.2026. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches Printed from counselvise.com "