RAJESH SINGHI,KOLKATA V. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(1), KOLKATA

ITA 2374/KOL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by Rajesh Singhi against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2013-14. The first appeal contested the addition of INR 1 lakh as income from a gift received from his mother, which was recorded in the assessee's balance sheet and supported by a gift deed. The second appeal addressed a disallowance of INR 3,70,080 on estimated expenses claimed against interest income. The Tribunal found that both the AO and the CIT(A) had not adequately considered the assessee's submissions and evidence, leading to the decision to allow the appeals and direct the deletion of the additions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 25097 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHUTOSH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH TIWARI
• Keywords: Set aside; Gift
• Section: 144; 250

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B(SMC)” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA Nos. 2374 & 2375/KOL/2024 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14) Rajesh Singhi 61, B.L. Saha Road, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700053 Vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(1) Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700107 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. ALSPS4854M Assessee by : Shri Manish Tiwari, AR Revenue by : Shri Ashutosh Kumar, DR Date of hearing: 25.03.2025 Date of pronouncement : 01.04.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: Theseare appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”]even dated 20.01.2023 for the AYs 2008-09 & 2013-14. 02. At the outset, I note from the appeal folder that there was a delay of six days in filing the appeals by the assessee and accordingly, the assessee was asked to explain the same. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in fact that there was no delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee filed the condonation petition, wherein it is submitted that the ld. CIT (A) passed the order u/s 250 of the Act on 20th January, 2023, for which the due date for filing the appeal was 18th March, 2023. Accordingly, the assessee deposited the requisite fees of ₹10,000/- on 13.03.2023, and form-36 was uploaded online on 14.03.2024. However, the Page | 2 ITA Nos. 2374 & 2375/KOL/2024 Rajesh Singhi; A.Y. 2008-09 & 2013-14 assessee was not aware that besides filing online appeal, the assessee was also supposed to file the physical hard copy of acknowledgement of filing the appeal with annexure and hence, the said delay in filing the appeal with the ITAT has happened due to the mistaken belief of the assessee qua not filing the physical copy before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee therefore, prayed that the said delay may kindly be condoned. 03. The ld. DR on the other hand, left the issue to the wisdom of the Bench. 04. After perusing the condonation petition and hearing the rival contentions, I find that the reasons cited by the ld. AO are bonafide and genuine. I also find that there is no delay in filing the appeal which has been filed within the time and the only physical copy with the Tribunal was delayed. Considering these facts, I am inclined to condone the same by admitting the appeals for adjudication 2374/KOL/2024 05. The only issue raised by the assessee is against the addition of ₹1 lacs as made by the ld. AO on account of gift from mother , which was also confirmed by the ld. CIT (A). 06. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, I find that the proceeding before the ld. AO as well as before the ld. CIT (A) were ex-parte and accordingly, the issue was decided without the representation/ participation of the assessee. I note that the said addition has been made by the ld. AO on account of gift received from the mother, which was duly depicted in the balance sheet of the assessee. During the course of hearing the assessee filed a gift deed dated 15.01.2008, which is signed by the Page | 3 ITA Nos. 2374 & 2375/KOL/2024 Rajesh Singhi; A.Y. 2008-09 & 2013-14 mother of the assessee and witnessed by the Gopal Das Rathe. In the gift deed, it was stated that the gift was made out of the personal saving of the mother and handed over to the assessee which was accepted by the assessee out of love and affection. Considering the facts on record and submissions of the counsel of the assessee, I am inclined to accept the same without restoring the issue either to ld. CIT (A) or ld. AO by considering the smallness of amount involved as the restoration would unnecessary waste of time and resources of the department. Accordingly, I set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. The appeal is allowed. 2375/KOL/2024 07. The only issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of addition of ₹3,70,080/- by the ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO on account of disallowance made u/s 57 of the Act. 08. The ld. AO noted during the assessment proceedings that the assessee has claimed expenses from interest received from the bank and others under the “head expenses and interest” to the tune of ₹9,45,000/- and accordingly, the ld. AO disallowed 40% on estimated basis thereby making disallowance of ₹3,78,080/-. 09. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) also affirmed the order of the ld. AO that the assessee has not furnished any evidences. 010. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, I find that the claim of the assessee has been rejected on estimated basis at the rate of 40% by the AO without there being any basis for such estimation and disallowance. In our opinion, even if the assessment is framed u/s 144 of the Act even then the ld. AO has to made the assessment on reasonable and Page | 4 ITA Nos. 2374 & 2375/KOL/2024 Rajesh Singhi; A.Y. 2008-09 & 2013-14 comparable basis but in the present case, the ld. AO has not given any reason for the same and so was done by the ld. CIT (A). Considering these facts and circumstances, I am inclined to set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) and direct the ld. AO to delete the addition. The appeal is allowed. 011. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 01.04.2025. Sd S Sd Sd/- /- (RAJESH KUMAR) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 01.04.2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata "