INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ESPLANADE V. JODHRAJ FINASSIST PRIVATE LIMITED, PRINCE BAKTIAR SHAH ROAD

ITA 1310/KOL/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Jodhraj Finassist Private Limited, which faced scrutiny from the Income Tax Department regarding substantial cash credits in its accounts, alleged to be accommodation entries. The AO initially added a sum of Rs. 29,91,00,000 to the assessee's income for AY 2013-14, which was later deleted by the CIT(A). The Revenue appealed against this decision. The Tribunal found procedural irregularities in the assessment process, including inadequate opportunity for the assessee to respond and the failure to consider submissions properly. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 36398 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: Sona Builders vs. UOI, Kesha Appliances Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO, Adbhut Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO, Northern Bengal Jute Trading Co, Ltd. Vs. CIT, Lal Chand Bhagat Ambika Ram Vs. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice; Accommodation entries; Bogus
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1); 143(2); 250; 68; 43; 133(6); 13; 14A

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'डी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री दुव्वुरु आरएल रेड्डी, उपाध्यक्ष (कोलकाता क्षेत्र) एवं श्री राक ेश धमश्रा, लेखा सदस्य क े समक्ष Before SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT (KZ) & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.: 1309 & 1310/KOL/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kolkata Vs. Jodhraj Finassist Private Limited (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAACJ5049F Appearances: Department represented by : Subhendu Datta, CIT-DR. Assessee represented by : S.S. Gupta, FCA. Date of concluding the hearing : February 18th, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : February 27th, 2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Both the appeals filed by the Revenue are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ld. ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AYs 2013-14 & 2014- 15 dated 08.09.2023. Since the issues in both the appeals are common, they were heard together and are being decided by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. Page | 2 I.T.A. Nos.: 1309 & 1310/KOL/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Jodhraj Finassist Private Limited. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: AY 2013-14: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 29,91,00,000/- with respect to cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” AY 2014-15: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 34,99,62,704/- with respect to cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. We will first take up ITA No. 1309/KOL/2023 for AY 2013-14. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had e-filed the original return of income for the AY 2013-14 (erroneously mentioned as AY 2014-15 in the body of the assessment order) on 25.09.2013 disclosing a total income of Rs. 1,51,95,020/- only. Later, information was received from the office of the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit - 2 (1), Kolkata vide office letter dated 25.02.2019, that on examination of the bank statements of various concerns viz., M/s. Raikot Finance and Investment Private Limited, M/s. Wonder Commotrade Private Limited (presently M/s. Everglow Equity Leasing Private Limited), M/s. Wrinkle Marketing Private Limited, M/s. Jatashiv Marketing Private Limited, etc. it was found that during the relevant period, the assessee company was a beneficiary of total amount of Rs. 26,76,00,000/-, deposited in its bank account bearing A/c No. 2511116898 provided through accommodation entries. Another letter dated 06.03.2019 was received from the office of the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit- 2(1), Kolkata that based on receipt of credible information and on examination of the bank statements of one M/s. Innovation Property Consultants Industries Limited, and other related concerns, it was Page | 3 I.T.A. Nos.: 1309 & 1310/KOL/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Jodhraj Finassist Private Limited. found that during the relevant period, the assessee company was a beneficiary of total amount of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- from one M/s. Quest Infrastructure Private Limited provided through accommodation entries. Further, information was received from the office of the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit-2 (1), Kolkata, vide letter dated 14.02.2020 that on examination of the bank statements of various proprietorship concerns of one Shri Rajkumar Singh viz. Ocean Trading Co. and other related concerns and on receipt of credible information, it was found that during the relevant period the assessee company was beneficiary of a total amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- from M/s. Ocean Trading Co. via one M/s. Axisline Agencies Private Limited which was provided through accommodation entries. Another information was received from the office of the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit- 2(3), Kolkata, vide letter dated 14.02.2020 that on examination of the bank statements of various proprietorship concerns of one Shri Kundan Kumar Mishra viz. Sunariwala Commercial Co. and other related concerns, on receipt of credible information, it was found that during the relevant period the assessee company was a beneficiary of total amount of Rs. 1,65,00,000/- from one M/s. Dristi Dealers Private Limited provided through accommodation entries. Based on the above information, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 20.03.2020 and was duly served. In response to the above-mentioned notice, the assessee filed the return of income u/s 148 of the Act on 06.07.2020 disclosing total income of Rs. 1,51,95,020/- only. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and questionnaire was issued to the assessee. Letters u/s 133(6) of the Act were also sent online to the relevant parties as per the information available. The assessee company e-filed its Page | 4 I.T.A. Nos.: 1309 & 1310/KOL/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Jodhraj Finassist Private Limited. Audited Accounts, Tax Audit Report, and relevant bank statements. The Ld. AO noted from the MCA portal that most of the related parties were already ‘Struck Off’. Therefore, a show cause letter was issued to the assessee requiring it to explain why funds totalling to Rs. 29,91,00,000/- in the bank account should not be treated as unexplained money brought into business through various accommodation entries, and not be added back to the total income. In response, the assessee, e-filed a copy of the relevant portion of the bank statement and copies of the confirmation ledger accounts. The submission of the assessee was considered but on the basis of the discrepancies noted, the explanation offered was found to be not satisfactory and a sum of Rs. 29,91,00,000/- was added to the total income of the assessee. Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 at Rs. 59,184/- was also made and expenses relating to filing fees of Rs. 4,500/- were also disallowed and the total income was assessed at Rs. 31,43,58,700/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who, vide order dated 08.09.2023, deleted the addition of Rs. 29,91,00,000/- after relying upon several judicial pronouncements and discussing the facts of the case. The addition u/s 14A of the Act and the addition made on account of filing fees were also deleted. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. During the course of the appeal the assessee has filed written submission which is as under: “Ground No. 1 Page | 5 I.T.A. Nos.: 1309 & 1310/KOL/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Jodhraj Finassist Private Limited. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 29,91,00,000/- with respect to cash credit u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It is submitted that the assessee company is a Non Banking Financial Company and the nature of business is Investment in Shares & Making Loans & Advances. Copy of Registration Certificate issued by RBI is enclosed on Pg. No. 161 of the paper book. It is submitted that in this case the Ld. AO has issued a show cause notice dt. 29-09-2021 for which compliance was required to be made by 28-09- 2021. Copy of the same is enclosed on Pg. No. 157 of the paper book. Thus, it is clear that asking the assessee to make the compliance even before the date of issue of notice is as good as giving no opportunity to the assessee. However, the assessee still managed to furnish reply to the said notice on 29-09-2021 i.e. same day itself. A copy of the reply dt. 29-09-2021 is enclosed on Pg. 159-160 of the paper book. Further it is also submitted that the Ld. AO has passed the assessment order on 30-09-2021 i.e. on the very next day of the issue of notice without even considering the submissions filed by the assessee on two occasions i.e. reply dt. 05-02-2021 (Copy of Reply enclosed on Pg. 100-156 of the Paper Book) and Reply dt. 29-09-2021 (Copy of Reply enclosed on Pg. 157-160 of the Paper Book). Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judicial decisions:- 119 Taxman 430 (SC) Sona Builders vs. UOI In this case Hon'ble Supreme court held as under:- \"Where appellant was given, in reality, only three days to respond which was plainly most inadequate, and also where no document relating to sale instance was furnished by appropriate authority along with notice or thereafter in order to enable appellant to adequately respond to allegation of under-statement of consideration as compared to said sale instance, there had been a gross breach of principles of natural justice, and, therefore, order of appropriate authority had to be quashed\" In the case of the assessee company, asking it to submit the response even before the date of issue of notice, which is practically impossible and as such it is a case of No opportunity of being heard. And hence the same is gross violation of the principles of Natural Justice and on this ground also assessment order is ab initio void and is liable to be quashed. Page | 6 I.T.A. Nos.: 1309 & 1310/KOL/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Jodhraj Finassist Private Limited. As per the said notice dt. 29-09-2021, The allegations as made by the Ld. AO are as under:- “It is seen from the records that i) a total amount of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- was deposited in your bank account from the bank account of one M/s. Quest Infrastructure Private Limited ii) a total amount of Rs. 1,65,00,000/- was deposited in your bank account from the bank account of one M/s. Drishti Dealers Private Limited ii) a total amount of Rs26,76,00,000/- was deposited in your bank account bearing number: 2511116898, maintained with the Kotak Mahindra Bank, Park Street Branch, Kolkata, and iv) a total amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- was deposited in your bank account from the bank account of one M/s. Ocean Trading Co. via one M/s. Axisline Agencies Private Limited, during the relevant period, despite issuing several notices and letters, no compliance has yet been made on your part. It is also seen from the records that no sales were made by you during the relevant period. Therefore, your creditworthiness has not been established and as such, you are hereby given the final opportunity to be heard and are required to explain/show cause as to why such amount of Rs.29,91,00,000/-, would not be treated as unexplained cash credited into your books of accounts through accommodation entries and added back to your total income.\" In this connection it is submitted that the above allegations are summarized as under:- Sl. no. Particulars Amount 1. Quest Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 1,25,00,000/- 2. Drishti Dealers Pvt. Ltd. 1,65,00,000/- 3. Deposits in Kotak Mahindra Bank 26,76,00,000/- 4. Axisline Agencies Pvt. Ltd. 25,00,000/- Total 29,91,00,000/- Regarding the sum of Rs. 26,76,00,000/-, the Ld. AO in the Assessment Order in Para 1.2 has mentioned as under:- \"1.2 Later, information were received from the office of the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit - 2 (1), Kolkata, vide his office letter dated 25.02.2019, that on examination of the bank statements of various concerns viz., M/s. Raikot Finance and Investment Private Limited, M/s. Wonder Commotrade Private Limited (presently M/s. Everglow Equity Leasing Private Limited), (M/s. Wrinkle Marketing Private Limited, M/s. Jatashiv Marketing Private Limited, etc., based on receipt of credible information, it was found that during the relevant period, the assessee company was a beneficiary of a total amount of Rs.26,76,00,000/- deposited in its bank account bearing number: 2511116898, provided through accommodation entries.\" Page | 7 I.T.A. Nos.: 1309 & 1310/KOL/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Jodhraj Finassist Private Limited. In this connection it is submitted that out of the four (4) entities/parties mentioned by the Ld. AO alleging a sum of Rs. 26.76 Crores, the appellant has only entered into a loan transaction of Rs. 50,00,000/- with M/s. Wrinkle Marketing Pvt. Ltd. A copy of Ledger account is enclosed on Pg. No. 176 of the Paper Book. Further the Ld. AO has also mentioned in para 1.3,1.4 & para 1.5 on pg 2 of the Assessment order :- \"1.3 Meanwhile, information was received from the office of the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit-2 (1), Kolkata, vide his office letter dated 06.03.2019, that on examination of the bank statements of one M/s. Innovation Property Consultants Industries Limited, and other related concerns, based on receipt of credible information, it was found that during the relevant period, the assessee company was a beneficiary of a total amount of Rs. 1,25,00,000/-, from one M/s. Quest Infrastructure Private Limited, provided through accommodation entries.\" In this connection it is submitted that as against the alleged sum of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- from M/s. Quest Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., factually only a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- has been received on 06-07-2012 from the said party on account of sale of shares. A copy of ledger account is enclosed on Pg. 177 of the Paper Book. \"1.4 Further, information was received from the office of the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit 2 (1), Kolkata, vide his office letter dated 14.02.2020, that on examination of the bank statements of various proprietorship concerns of one Shri Rajkumar Singh viz., Ocean Trading Co., and other related concerns, based on receipt of credible information, it was found that during the relevant period, the assessee company was a beneficiary of a total amount of Rs.25,00,000/-, from M/s. Ocean Trading Co. via one M/s. Axisline Agencies Private Limited, provided through accommodation entries.\" In this connection it is submitted as under:- a) Regarding the transaction with Axisline Agencies Pvt. Ltd. as against the alleged transactions of Rs. 25,00,000/- the assessee company has received a sum of Rs. 78,00,000/- on account of Sale of Shares. Copy of the ledger account is enclosed on Pg. No. 179 of the Paper Book. b) Regarding the transaction with Shri Raj Kumar Singh viz. Ocean Trading Co. the company does not have any transaction with the said party. \"1.5 Another information was received from the office of the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit 2 (3), Kolkata, vide his office letter dated 14.02.2020, that on examination of the bank statements of various proprietorship concerns of one Shri Kundan Kumar Mishra viz., Sunariwala Page | 8 I.T.A. Nos.: 1309 & 1310/KOL/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Jodhraj Finassist Private Limited. Commercial Co., and other related concerns, based on receipt of credible information, it was found that during the relevant period, the assessee company was a beneficiary of a total amount of Rs. 1,65,00,000/-, from M/s. Dristi Dealers Private Limited, provided through accommodation entries.\" In this connection it is submitted that as against the alleged sum of Rs. 1,65,00,000/- from M/s. Drishti Dealers Pvt. Ltd. the assessee company has received a sum of Rs. 2,21,00,000/- on account of Sale of Shares. Copy of the ledger account is enclosed on Pg. No. 178 of the Paper Book. Regarding the alleged parties/entities as mentioned in the show cause notice Dt. 29-09-2021 and in the body of the assessment order as stated above we submit as under:- The assessee company did not any transactions with the following entities:- i. Raikot Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. ii. Wonder Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. (Presently Everglow Equity Leasing Pvt. Ltd.) iii. Jatashiv Marketing Pvt. Ltd. iv. Innovation Property Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. Shri Raj Kumar Singh viz. Ocean Trading Co. vi. Shri Kundan Kumar Mishra viz. Sonariwala Commercial Co. The Ld. AO has also alleged that from the MCA Portal most of the related parties were already struck off. In this connection it is submitted as under:- Sl. No. Particulars Remarks 1. Wrinkle Marketing Pvt. Ltd. The MCA Status of the said company is showing \"ACTIVE\" on the MCA portal as on 30-11-2022 (Pg no. 162 of the Paper Book) 2. Quest Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The said company was operative during the F.Y. 2012-13 as is evident from the Company Master Data on the MCA portal as appointment of one director Mr. Anil Roy was made on 09-07-2013. Copy of the same is enclosed on Pg. No 163 of the Paper Book. 3. Drishti Dealers Pvt. Ltd. The said company was operative and active during the F.Y. 2012-13. Copy of the same is enclosed on Pg. No 164 of the Paper Book. 4. M/s. Axisline Agencies Private Limited The said company was operative and active during the F.Y. 2012-13. Page | 9 I.T.A. Nos.: 1309 & 1310/KOL/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Jodhraj Finassist Private Limited. Copy of the same is enclosed on Pg. No 165 of the Paper Book. Further it is submitted that total credits in the bank account of the appellant assessee is as under:- Particulars Amount Sale of Shares B/F from earlier years (Copy of detail of sale of shares is enclosed on Pg no. 125-128 of the Paper Book ) Rs. 22,66,48,777 Refund of Loans interest on such loans (Copy of detail of Refund of Loans is enclosed on Pg no. 166 of the Paper Book) Rs. 4,64,71,397 Cash Deposits Rs. 1,00,000 Geometry Vanijya Rs. 53,833 TOTAL Rs. 27,32,24,007 A copy of the bank account with complete details is enclosed on Pg 129-139 of the Paper Book. It is submitted that the sum of Rs. 22,66,48,777/- represents proceeds of sale of investments which have been purchased in earlier years and thus the Ld. AO is wholly unjustified in making the addition of Rs, 29,91,00,000/- on the allegation of bogus transactions. It is submitted that when assessee company's own investments purchased/made in earlier years are sold and proceeds realized in current year cannot be held to be ingenuine and/or bogus and no addition whatsoever can be made u/s. 68. Reliance in this connection is made on the following judicial decisions: 63 ITR (Trib.) 294 (Delhi) Kesha Appliances Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO In this case Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal held as under: “Cash credits - Sale of shares - Audited Financial Statements showing assessee holding investment from earlier years - Presumption that investments duly accepted in earlier years.\" ITAT Kolkata Adbhut Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO ITA No. 24O4/Kol/2O17 In this case also Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal has accepted the genuineness of investments made in earlier years and sold in the current year and addition made u/s. 68 was deleted. A perusal of the above details would also reveal that the Ld. AO has made the addition only on doubts, suspicions, surmises and conjectures which is not permitted in law. Page | 10 I.T.A. Nos.: 1309 & 1310/KOL/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Jodhraj Finassist Private Limited. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judicial decisions:- 70 ITR 407 (Cal.) Northern Bengal Jute Trading Co, Ltd. Vs. CIT In this case Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held as under:- \"The fate of the assessee cannot be decided by the revenue on the basis of surmises, suspicions or probabilities.\" 37 ITR 288(SC) Lal Chand Bhagat Ambika Ram Vs. CIT In this case Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- \"Assessment of income should not be made on the basis of assumptions, presumptions, surmises and suspicions.\" In view of the facts, circumstances and judicial decisions stated above the addition made of Rs. 29,91,00,000/- is liable to be deleted and we fully rely on the order of the Ld. CIT(A).” 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined and we have also gone through the facts of the case. It was argued by the Ld. AR that the Ld. AO issued notice dated 29.09.2021 to comply on 28.09.2021, yet the assessee complied. The assessee had filed a return in response to the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and notice u/s 148 of the Act and also in response to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act in the mid-year but at the end of the year when the limitation was approaching, on 29.09.2021 the assessee was required to file the details by 28.09.2021. Our attention was also drawn to other pages of the paper book. 6. The Ld. AR argued that despite not being given adequate opportunity, the assessee had filed the required details and the Ld. AO passed the order on 30.09.2021 without considering the reply of the assessee which was filed. As regards the merits of the case, it was argued that the names of several companies with whom transactions Page | 11 I.T.A. Nos.: 1309 & 1310/KOL/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Jodhraj Finassist Private Limited. were not made were also mentioned and general observation was made without giving any specific finding. The Bench brought it to the notice of the Ld. AR that the assessment order was u/s 144 of the Act and the assessee furnished some details before the Ld. CIT(A) but no remand report was called for by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR drew our attention to page 43 of the paper book relating to Ground no. 6 to 11 in which it is mentioned that there was no transaction from three companies, four companies were still active on the stock exchange on the MCA Portal and the transaction with M/s. Wrinkle Marketing Private Limited related to loan of Rs. 50,00,000/- which was given and returned on the same date. There was no transaction with six companies have been mentioned and page 100 of the paper book was relied upon in support of the claim that the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 28.01.2021 was duly complied with and all evidences were furnished online. The Ld. AO also admitted the submission and documents filed by the assessee and page 94 of the paper book para 1.7 of the assessment order was relied upon in this regard in which it is mentioned that the assessee company e-filed its Audited Accounts, Tax Audit Report and relevant bank statements for examination. Copy of bank statement was also filed and is available at page 129 to 139 of the paper book relating to Kotak Mahindra Bank. It was submitted that the Ld. AO added the credit of Rs. 29,91,00,000/- which the Ld. CIT(A) has worked out at Rs. 27,32,24,007/-, most of which related to sale of shares relating to earlier years. It was also conveyed to the Ld. AR that no bank statement of the companies with which transactions were carried out was filed. The Ld. DR also drew our attention to page 45 of the paper book in which the discussion about the creditors has been made. It was stated that no brokerage was paid for the money raised and no remand report Page | 12 I.T.A. Nos.: 1309 & 1310/KOL/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Jodhraj Finassist Private Limited. was called for by the Ld. CIT(A). On identical lines, the appeal of the AY 2014-15 was also allowed. The written submissions filed by the assessee have also been examined. 7. The assessment order in this case was made u/s 147 read with Section 144 of the Act. There was no compliance relating to the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act in which at para 6 the Ld. AO had required the assessee to provide name, address and e-mail ID, ledger account of the parties with whom these transactions were made and also to provide bank account statement through which these transactions have been made. The details were filed before the Ld. CIT(A) however, the Ld. CIT(A) admitted these details without calling for a remand report from the Ld. AO and the appeal has been decided in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules,1962. Since proper opportunity was not allowed to the Ld. AO and no representation was made before the Ld. AO , therefore, we deem it appropriate in the interest of justice to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the Ld. AO and remit the matter to the Ld. AO to frame the assessment order de novo after examining the evidence filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and shall be at liberty to file all evidences before the Ld. AO in support of the relief claimed. Hence, the appeal for AY 2013-14 filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. As regards the appeal for AY 2014-15 in 1310/KOL/2023, since the facts are identical, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) as well as of the Ld. AO are set aside in view of the finding in AY 2013-14 and the matter is remitted to the Ld. AO to frame the assessment order de novo after Page | 13 I.T.A. Nos.: 1309 & 1310/KOL/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Jodhraj Finassist Private Limited. complying with the directions issued as per the findings for AY 2013- 14. 9. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [Duvvuru RL Reddy] [Rakesh Mishra] Vice President (KZ) Accountant Member Dated: 27.02.2025 Bidhan (P.S.) Page | 14 I.T.A. Nos.: 1309 & 1310/KOL/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Jodhraj Finassist Private Limited. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kolkata. 2. Jodhraj Finassist Private Limited, 3, Prince Baktiar Shah Road, Tollygunge HO, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700033. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. 6. Guard File. //True copy // By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata "