J.K. ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,GANGTOK, SIKKIM V. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 3(2), GANGTOK

ITA 1817/KOL/2024

AI Insights

J. K. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - NFAC, Delhi, which had confirmed the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer had made several additions to the income declared by the company, which included discrepancies between the income tax return and service tax return, unexplained cash credits, and other disallowances under various sections of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance by the assessee in submitting necessary documents and submissions. The Tribunal, considering the affidavit submitted by the assessee and the lack of objection from the Departmental Representative, decided to remit the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312341 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 143(3); 43B

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “ए’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA Įी Ĥदȣप क ुमार चौबे, ÛयाǓयक सदèय एवं Įी राक ेश ͧमĮ, लेखा सटèय क े सम¢ [Before Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member &Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member] I.T.A. No. 1817/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 J. K. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AABCJ 9413l G) Vs. ACIT, Circle-3(2), Gangtok Appellant / ) अपीलाथȸ ( Respondent / Ĥ×यथȸ Date of Hearing / सुनवाई कȧ Ǔतͬथ 15.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement/ आदेश उɮघोषणा कȧ Ǔतͬथ 28.04.2025 For the assessee / Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate For the revenue / राजèव कȧ ओर से Shri Gautam Patra, Addl. CIT DR ORDER / आदेश Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM: This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 02.08.2024 for AY 2017-18. 2 I.T.A. No. 1817/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 J. K. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 2. Brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee is a public limited company, filed its return of income for AY 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs. 91,72,640/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny, notice u/s 143(2) was issued and in response to notices the AR of the assessee submitted relevant details along with documents. The AO, after considering the submission, passed an assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act assessing the total income of Rs. 1,33,93,000/- by making following addition-an addition of Rs. 3,01,450/- being difference in ITR and service tax return, Rs. 19,45,802/- as unexplained cash credit of Rs. 1,03,824/- u/s 26(1) (va), Rs. 17,62,656/- u/s 43B of the Act and Rs. 1,06,500/- u/s 40a(ia) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed as there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the assessee preferred an appeal before us. 4. The Ld. Counsel appeared on behalf of the assessee instead of arguing into merit of the case has only prayed that the assessee has been given an opportunity to place its case before the Ld. CIT(A) as the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order. The Ld. Counsel submits that the assessee possessed several documentary evidences to prove its case so he has been given an opportunity to place the same before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Contrary to that the Ld. D.R though supports the impugned order but did not raise any objection in remitting the case back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to pass afresh order. 6. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties, we have perused the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and find that the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the order of AO on all the issues when the assessee did not file any written submission with documentary evidences to controvert the finding of the AO. The Ld. CIT(A) has held that in absence of written submission and evidence, it remained to be unexplained 3 I.T.A. No. 1817/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 J. K. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. as to how the AO’s order is erroneous. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex- parte order. The AR has filed an Affidavit and given undertaking of proper compliance if the appeal is remitted back to the file of lower authorities. An affidavit filed by the assessee is herein below: 4 I.T.A. No. 1817/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 J. K. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 7. Keeping in view the Affidavit filed by the assessee and going over the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), for the interest of justice we are inclined to restore the appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The order passed by AO confirmed by the CIT(A) is set aside. 5 I.T.A. No. 1817/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 J. K. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 28th April, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Rakesh Mishra /राक ेश ͧमĮ) (Pradip Kumar Choubey /Ĥदȣप क ुमार चौबे) Accountant Member/लेखा सदèय Judicial Member/ÛयाǓयक सदèय Dated: 28th April, 2025 SM, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- J. K. Engineering Pvt. Ltd., C/o, Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2nd Floor, Kolkata- 700069. 2. Respondent – ACIT, Circle-3(2), Gangtok 3. Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi 4. Ld. Pr. CIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail) True Copy By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata "