INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA V. EQUIPMENT BARTER PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

ITA 1560/KOL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s decision which partly allowed the assessee's appeal concerning the addition of \\u20b925,00,000 to the assessee's income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, Equipment Barter Private Limited, was accused of receiving unexplained money through dubious channels, which the AO initially added to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) later deleted this addition, leading to the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately verified the claims and thus remitted the case back for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775510 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Accommodation entries; Bogus
• Section: 147; 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 1560/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Kolkata Vs. Equipment Barter Private Limited (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AACCE3001E Appearances: Assessee represented by : None. Department represented by : Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 30-July-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 09-September-2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)']-NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2013-14 dated 29.09.2023, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 29.03.2022. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the appeal was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the Revenue is barred by limitation by 233 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the Revenue stating as under: Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 I.T.A. No.: 1560/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Equipment Barter Private Limited. Date Particulars Remarks for delay appeal 29.09.2023 CIT(A) order passed 0 days 29.09.2023 Received online 0 days 30.09.2023 to 07.10.2023 Tracing record 08 days 08.10.2023 to 12.10.2023 Drafting ASR 05 days 13.10.2023 ASR Submitted to PCIT-2 through AddL CIT, R-11/Kol - 30.06.2024 Returned Back from PCIT-2 office to JAO with the direction to resubmit the ASR in the light of exception clause 3.1(h) of CBDT circular no 5/2024 dt. 15.03.2024 along with proper grounds of appeal and condonation of delay 274 days 05.07.2024 Resubmitted ASR as per direction of PCIT- 2, Kolkata 5 days 12.07.2024 Received back from CIT office with the Certificates 7 days 13.07.2024 to 18.07.2024 (included 13th & 14th June as Saturday and Sunday and 17th Holiday) Preparation of grounds of appeal and condonation of delay for filing 2nd appeal before ITAT 6 days Total time taken for filing appeal = 305 days Less: Statutory time allowed for filing appeal = 60 days Delay in filing appeal = 245 days Delay in 245 days which may kindly be condoned. 1.2. Considering the application for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the Revenue had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Bench raising the following grounds of appeal: Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 I.T.A. No.: 1560/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Equipment Barter Private Limited. “1. That the CIT(A) has erred in taking decision in favour of the assessee without any verification on the issue. 2. The CIT(A) has erred ignoring the settled position of law in respect of provision of Sec 68 of the Act that onus of proving the identity & creditworthiness of the parties from whom the assessee received money and genuineness of the such transaction is on the assessee and the assessee miserably failed to prove so in the instant case. 3. The appellant craves leave to make any amend, addition, alternation, modification etc. of the grounds either before the appellate proceedings, or in the course of appellate proceedings.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company had filed the return of income for the AY 2013-14 showing total income of ₹15,800/- . Information was received from the DDIT(Inv.), Unit-3(3), Kolkata with regard to layering of funds through the several bank accounts of jamakharachi/shell concerns and it was seen that the assessee company received an amount of ₹25,00,000/- from M/s. Bhumilaxmi Distributors Pvt. Ltd. which was routed through by bank account of M/s. Bhumilaxmi Distributors Pvt. Ltd. providing bogus accommodation entries and it had transferred its undisclosed income in its regular books of account. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') noted that the assessee company had not disclosed its true and full income and income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The assessee company had provided copy of bank statements highlighting the transactions entered into with the Jamakharchi Company. No other details had been provided by the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions entered into by the company nor had anything been brought on record to prove the genuineness of the transactions entered into by the company. The Ld. AO therefore, added a sum of ₹25,00,000/- to the returned income of Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 I.T.A. No.: 1560/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Equipment Barter Private Limited. the assessee u/s 68 of the Act and assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹25,15,800/- u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who, vide order dated 29.09.2023, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the Ld. AO was not able to make out a case for addition of ₹2500000/- u/s 144/148 of the Act. The Ld. AO had simply relied on the findings of the Investigation Wing in case of Vinayak Enterprises, that there was no linkage between the fund received by the appellant company and the Vinayak Enterprises. That the appellant had submitted the required details such as the return of income, the audited account and the bank statement of the Bhumi Laxmi Distributors Pvt. Ltd., to attract the provision of section 68 of the Act. Further relying on the submission of the appellant, the case laws and the above discussed judicial decision, the addition made by the Ld. AO of ₹25,00,000/- is accordingly deleted. The Ground of Appeal No. 3 is allowed”. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant was partly allowed. 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the Ld. DR. The Ld. DR submitted as per the grounds of appeal that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the settled position of law in respect of provisions of section 68 of the Act that onus of proving the identity & creditworthiness of the parties from whom the assessee received money and genuineness of such transaction is on the assessee and the assessee miserably failed to prove so in the instant case and requested that the finding of the Ld. AO may be confirmed. It was Further assessee to justify the source of money are not the onus of the Ld. AO to prove beyond reasonable doubt. The Bench was of the Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 I.T.A. No.: 1560/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Equipment Barter Private Limited. view that in the interest of justice and fair play, another opportunity needs to be provided to the Revenue. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the appeal to him to be decided afresh, who shall allow an opportunity of being heard to the assessee also and thereby pass an order in accordance with law. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 9th September, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 09.09.2025 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.) Printed from counselvise.com Page | 6 I.T.A. No.: 1560/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Equipment Barter Private Limited. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Kolkata. 2. Equipment Barter Private Limited, 33 Ward No. 7, Sabji Mahal Orderly Bazar, Barrackpur Cantonment, North 24 Pgs., Kolkata, West Bengal, 700120. 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 Printed from counselvise.com "