ITO, Ward - 12(2), Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s. Metrail India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 385/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74962 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.3 85/KOL./2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA C BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER), AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. NO. 385/KOL. / 2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 INCOME TAX OFFICER,.................. ...APPELLANT WARD-12(2), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, 7 TH FLOOR, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 -VS.- M/S. METRAIL INDIA PVT. LTD.,................. .....RESPONDENT 8/1, MIDLETON ROW, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 016, [PAN : AAECM 0225 F] APPEARANCES BY: SHRI AMIT KUMAR MAITRA, JCIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT SHRI VIGYANESHWAR NATH DATTA, ADVOCATE, FOR THE ASS ESSEE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : DECEMBER 30, 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : JANUARY 08, 2014 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XII, KOLKATA I N APPEAL NO. 518/XII/12(2)/08-09 DATED 07.12.2011 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. SHRI AMIT KR. MAITRA, JCIT, SR. D.R. REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI VIGYANESHWAR NATH DATTA, ADVOCATE, REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN THE REVENUES APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND :- I.T.A. NO.3 85/KOL./2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 PAGE 2 OF 3 WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN D ELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.35,06,748/- BEING UNEXPLAINED LO ANS BY ACCEPTING AND CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IGNORING THE PROVISION OF RULE 46A. 4. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION BY THE LD. D.R. THAT IN TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO DETAILS WAS PRODUCED. CONSEQUENTLY IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED THE UNSECURED LOANS, WHICH THE ASSES SEE WAS UNABLE TO ESTABLISH. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT ON APPEAL, LD . CIT(APPEALS) WITHOUT CALLING FOR A REMAND REPORT HAD TAKEN INTO CONSIDER ATION EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITION. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ISSUE IN THE APPEAL MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-ADJUDICATION. 5. IN REPLY, LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS ON ACCO UNT OF CERTAIN DISPUTES BETWEEN THE SHAREHOLDERS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE ALL THE DETAILS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT ALL THE DETAILS PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAD ALSO BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. CIT(A PPEALS). HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 5 OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS ). IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS LIABLE TO BE SUSTAINED. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERU SAL OF THE PARA 5 OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) CLEARLY SHOWS THAT DETAILS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) BY THE ASSESSE E. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN DIRECTED TO PRODUCE DETA ILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, AFTER THE DETAILS HAD B EEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NO REMAND REPORT HAS BEEN CALLED FOR FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL MUST BE RESTORED TO THE FILE O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-ADJUDICATION AND EXAMINATION OF ALL THE EVID ENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WE DO SO. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE IS SUE IN THIS APPEAL ARE I.T.A. NO.3 85/KOL./2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 PAGE 3 OF 3 RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-AD JUDICATION AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIAL IT S CASE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/- SD/- ABRAHAM P. GEORGE GEORGE MATHA N (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JU DICIAL MEMBER) KOLKATA, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014 COPIES TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE (2) THE DEPARTMENT (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.