Abhijit Pandit, Howrah I.T.O.,Ward-46(1), Kolkata

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA

 (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Judicial Member)

I.T.A. No. 2174/Kol/2019
Assessment Year: 2014-15

ACIT, CC-1 (3), Kolkata................Appellant

Vs.

M/s. Kalindi Merchandise Pvt. Ltd............................Respondent
[PAN: AADCK 8082 G]

Appearances by:
Sh. Devi Saran Singh, CIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue.
Sh. S.M. Surana, Adv., appeared on behalf of the Assessee.

Date of concluding the hearing : May 05th, 2021
Date of pronouncing the order : June 18th, 2021

ORDER

Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM:

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Kolkata [hereinafter the “CIT(A)”], passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), dated 11.04.2019 for the Assessment Year 2014-15.

2. There is a delay of 76 days in filing of the appeal. After perusing the reasons stated for delay of the appeal, we condone the delay and admit the appeal.

3. The revised grounds of the appeal are as follows:

“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred by deleting the addition of Rs. 8,62,33,618/- under section 69 of the IT Act, 1961, without adjudicating the case on merits and without appreciating the facts and the circumstances of the case detailed in the assessment order of the erstwhile AO.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the cases and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has violated the Rule 46A of the IT Rule,1962. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to call/remand report on the evidences provided by the assessee before Ld.CIT(A) and to allow the AO to corroborate with the evidence presented before the Appellate Authority.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred both the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law in holding that section 69 of the IT Act, 1961 is not justifiable in the instant case. However, the assessee had not produced any satisfactory explanation corroborated along with any factual evidences to substantiate the claim of the assessee in respect of investments, before the AO, which clearly distinguished in the Section 69 of IT Act, 1961.

4. That the Department craves the leave to addition, alter or modify any Ground of Appeal in the course of Appellate Proceedings.”

4. The ld. CIT(D/R) submitted that he is pressing ground no. 2 which is against violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. He submitted that the ld. CIT(A) did not call for a remand report from the AO on the evidences provided by the assessee and thus the AO was not given an opportunity to examine the facts and give his view on the matter. Thus he submitted that the issue may be set aside to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 

To know more in details find the attachment file