Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
Sudip Kumar Bhattacharya, Kolkata vs Acit, Circle - 40, Kolkata, Kolkata on 6 September, 2019
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C", BENCH KOLKATA
BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM
आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.1416/Kol/2017
( नधारणवष / Assessment Year: 2012-13)
Sudip Kumar Bhattacharya Vs. ACIT, Circle-40, Kolkata
64/95, Khudiram Bose Sarani,
Kolkata-700037
थायीले खासं . /जीआइआरसं . /PAN/GIR No.: AEIPB 4333 B
(Assessee) .. (Revenue)
Assessee by : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate
Respondent by : Shri Pradip Kr. Majumder, Addl. CIT DR
सुनवाईक तार ख/ Date of Hearing : 30/07/2019
घोषणाक तार ख/Date of Pronouncement : 06/09/2019
आदे श / O R D E R
Per Dr. A. L. Saini, AM:
The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2012-13 , is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-13, Kolkata, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') dated 22/08/2014.
2. At the outset itself, the ld counsel for the assessee submitted that during the appellate stage, the ld. CIT(A) sought three remand report from assessing officer. These remand reports are contradictory to each other, vide 1st remand report of Assessing Officer reproduced at page No. 16 para 7.1.5 of ld. CIT(A) order, 2nd remand report of Assessing Officer reproduced at page No. 12 of ld. CIT(A)'s Sudip Kumar Bhattacharya ITA No.1416/Kol/2017 Assessment Year:2012-13 order and 3rd remand report of Assessing Officer reproduced at page 12 of ld. CIT(A)'s order and contended that the basis of ld. CIT(A) is vitiated being the outcome of contradiction report of Assessing Officer.
Ld. D.R. for the Revenue could not contradict the fact that these three remand reports of Assessing Officer obtained by the ld CIT(A) during the appellate stage, are contradictory to each other; however, he supported the decision of ld. CIT(A).
3. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that 1st remand report submitted by Assessing Officer vide pg 16 of ld. CIT(A) and para no. 7.1.5, wherein the Assessing Officer stated that the assessee has not produced cash book.
In 2nd remand report dated 31.08.2016, the Assessing Officer stated the assessee has produced cash statement and cash book, vide pg 12 of order of ld. CIT(A).
In 3rd remand report, vide pg 23 of ld. CIT(A) dated 31.12.2016, the Assessing Officer stated that books of accounts were not produced by the assessee at all.
The ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee has produced books of accounts and Assessing Officer has computed disallowance item-wise, expense-wise. According to him, without the help of books of accounts the Assessing Officer cannot compute the disallowance expense-wise. In 1st remand report the AO stated that no cash book produced by the assessee. We note that in 2nd remand report, Assessing Officer stated that assessee has produced cash book whereas in 3rd remand report Assessing Officer stated that no books of accounts were produced by the assessee. We note that cash book is a part of books of accounts, which was produced by the assessee as confirmed by the Assessing Officer in his 2nd remand report. Thus, we note that on one hand AO stated that no books of accounts were produced by the assessee and on the other hand he computed disallowance item-wise/expense-wise which the Assessing Officer cannot do without the aid of books of accounts. Therefore, we find that there are a lot of contradictory factual assertions in these remand reports. Hence, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) could not have Pa g e | 2 Sudip Kumar Bhattacharya ITA No.1416/Kol/2017 Assessment Year:2012-13 reached a logical conclusion on the issue before him because of contradictory and confusing report prepared by the Assessing Officer in these three remand reports.
4. At the cost of repetition, we note that the Assessing Officer has himself disallowed expenses item-wise which he could have carried out only after examination of the books of accounts of the assessee. However, in 3rd remand report, the AO has submitted that assessee has not produced books of accounts. However, we wonder as to how the Assessing Officer without the aid of books of accounts could have disallowed expenses item-wise. In the light of the aforesaid conclusion & inconsistencies, we are of the view that neither the ld. CIT(A) nor the Assessing Officer could have logically determined the correct income of the assessee. Hence we are of the view that this issue should be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The ld. DR for the revenue did not have objection if the matter is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer. Therefore we think it fit and appropriate to remit this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated to be allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Court on 06.09.2019
Sd/- Sd/-
(A.T. VARKEY) (A.L.SAINI)
या यकसद य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखासद य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
दनांक/ Date: 06/09/2019
(SB, Sr.PS)
Pa g e | 3
Sudip Kumar Bhattacharya
ITA No.1416/Kol/2017
Assessment Year:2012-13
Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. Sudip Kumar Bhattacharya
2. ACIT, Circle-40, Kolkata.
3. C.I.T(A)- 4. C.I.T.- Kolkata.
5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.
6. Guard File.
True copy
By Order
Assistant Registrar
ITAT, Kolkata Benches
Pa g e | 4