SAVIOUR COMMOTRADE PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATTA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 11(1), KOLKATTA,(ORDER PASSED BY NFAC, DELHI), KOLKATTA

ITA 2567/KOL/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Saviour Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The primary issue revolves around alleged accommodation entries. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had previously failed to substantiate its case before the ld. CIT (A), leading to an ex-parte order. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the ld. CIT (A) for a fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present additional evidence and substantiate the transactions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 781951 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2024
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJA SENGUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: NISHEETH DOSHI
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Accommodation entries

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, AM ITA No. 2567/KOL/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Saviour Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. 6, Judges Court Road, PIN-700027, West Bengal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(1) Kolkata, Aaykar Bhawan, Kolkata-700027, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAMCS3660D Assessee by : Shri Nisheeth Doshi, AR Revenue by : Shri Raja Sengupta, DR Date of hearing: 30.10.2025 Date of pronouncement: 30.10.2025 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)] (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] in appeal no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070298542(1) dated 12.11.2024 for the AY 2013-14. 02. Shri Nisheeth Doshi appeared on behalf of the assessee and Raja Sengupta appeared on behalf of the revenue. 03. The assessee has sought adjournment. As the issues in the appeal is simple and the reasons given is not substantiated, the adjournment application is rejected and the appeal disposed off. 04. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the appeal is originally been heard earlier on 13.05.2025 and it was noted that the issue in the appeal would be restored to the file of the ld. CIT (A)/ Assessing Officer. 05. A perusal of the order sheet entries of 13.05.2025 shows that admittedly the appeal was heard but the order was not passed and since Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA Nos. 767 & 768/KOL/2025 Birbhum District Central Co-operative Bank Limited; A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 ` the 90 days period was over the matter was released from hearing and the appeal reposted. It was submitted by the ld. AR admittedly that the order of the ld. CIT (A) is an ex-parte order. It was the prayer that the issues may be restored to the file of the ld. AO for adjudication. 06. In reply, the ld. CIT DR submitted that the assessee has produced all the details before the ld. AO but has failed to substantiate its case before the ld. CIT (A). It was the submission that no objection to restore the issue to the file of the ld. CIT (A) for re-adjudication. 07. We have considered the rival submission. Perusal of the facts in the present case shows that this is a case of alleged accommodation entries. Further perusal of the facts shows that before the ld. CIT (A) the assessee has not represented his case. In these circumstances, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. CIT (A) for adjudication on merits after granting assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee should be granted adequate opportunity to produce its directors as also the directors of the various persons who have given the assessee the money so the assessee can proof the transactions. In the event the assessee does file any additional evidence the same should be given to the AO for remand. Should the assessee not co-operate in the set aside proceedings, liberty is granted to the ld. CIT (A) to draw adverse interference. 08. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.10.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RAKESH MISHRA) (GEORGE MATHAN) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated:30.10.2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 ITA Nos. 767 & 768/KOL/2025 Birbhum District Central Co-operative Bank Limited; A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 ` Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Printed from counselvise.com "