INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA V. KANYA KUMARI PROPERTIES PVT LTD., KOLKATA

MA 54/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application (MA No. 54/KOL/2025) filed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(2), Kolkata against Kanya Kumari Properties Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue sought rectification of an earlier Tribunal order (ITA No. 2017/Kol/2024) which had favored the assessee based on a low tax effect, despite allegations of involvement in providing accommodation entry and money laundering. The Revenue argued that the case fell under an exceptional clause of the CBDT Circular due to its involvement in money laundering. However, the Tribunal found that the Revenue did not meet the burden of proof required to trigger the exceptions clause and dismissed the application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 787992 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Swati Bajaj vs. [2022] 139 taxmann.com 352 (Calcutta) / 2022 446 ITR 56 (Calcutta), Sumati Dayal vs CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC), CIT vs Durga Prasad More 1973 CTR (SC) 500: [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC), Sreelekha Banerjee vs CIT (49 ITR 122 (1963))
• Laws Referred To: CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Tax effect; Rectification of order

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No. 54/KOL/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 2017/Kol/2024) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 3rd Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700069 .....................…...……………....Appellant vs. Kanya Kumari Properties Pvt. Ltd., AB-9, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata - 700048 ........................................ Respondent [PAN: AACCK4077G] Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Miraj D. Shah, AR Department represented by : S.B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 21.11.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 25.11.2025 ORDER PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Revenue for rectification of order dated 17.12.2024, passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 2017/Kol/2024, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2013-14. The grounds of MA are as under: “i. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee based only on low tax effect and ignoring the fact that HHBRF was involved in providing accommodation entry in lieu of commission and for this act, CBDT withdrew its approval in respect of HHBRF during 2016. ii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata has erred in ignoring the details report of the Investigation Wing Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 54/Kol/2025 Kanya Kumari Properties Pvt. Ltd. 2 on HHBRF, which is clearly suggests that the case is related to accommodation entry. iii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata has erred in ignoring the fact that the case falls under the exceptional clause 'h' given in paragraph 3.1 in CBDT's Circular No dated 15.03.2024. iv. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in deleting the impugned addition of Rs 87,50,000/-, made by the AQ by ignoring that these transactions were of highly suspicious nature, and the action of the Assessing Officer was fully justified as per the well laid out principles of circumstantial evidence and preponderance of probability as elicited by the Han ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Swati Bajaj. [2022] 139 taxmann.com 352 (Calcutta) / 2022 446 ITR 56 (Calcutta) v. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has failed to appreciate the judicial principles laid down in the matter of Sumati Dayal Vs CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) vi. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has failed to appreciate the judicial principles laid down in CIT Vs Durga Prasad More 1973 CTR (SC) 500: [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) vii Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has failed to appreciate the judicial principles laid down in Sreelekha Banerjee Vs CIT (49 ITR 122 (1963)). viii. The appellant craves leave to make any amend, addition, alteration, modification etc. of the grounds either before the appellate proceedings, or in the course of appellate proceedings. Therefore, it is submitted by this Miscellaneous Application that the above matter as pointed out may kindly be addressed by the Hon'ble ITAT and adjudicate the matter on merit as the case falls under exceptional clause 'h' given in paragraph 3 1 in CBDT's Circular No. dated 15.03.2024.” 2. During the course of hearing, the Ld. DR emphasized on clause 3.1(h) of CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024. It was stated that the case involved money laundering and hence was covered within the exceptions mentioned in Clause 3.1(h). The Ld. AR, on the other hand, stated that there was no allegation of large scale money laundering as envisaged under the said Clause of the CBDT Circular (supra). In fact, it was pointed out that the small tax effect itself was evidence of the fact that there was no large-scale money laundering involved. 2.1 We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 54/Kol/2025 Kanya Kumari Properties Pvt. Ltd. 3 through the records. We find that the Revenue has not been able to establish any cause whereby the exceptions clause gets triggered in this particular case. Accordingly, we find no error in the ITAT’s order and thereby dismiss the MA filed by the Revenue. 3. In result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 25.11.2025 Sd/- Sd/- [George Mathan] [Sanjay Awasthi] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 25.11.2025 AK, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR) //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches Printed from counselvise.com "