TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 1347
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Kolkata u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), dated 19.12.2016 for AY 2014-15. 2. Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under: "(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) [NFAC] erred in confirming the addition of Authority below of an amounting Rs. 32,99,000/- Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the total income of the appellant, treating the entire unsecured loan as unexplained cash credit without appreciating the findings made by the Ld. A.O. on the alleged issue while passing the Original Assessment Order under section 143(3) dated 19/12/2016 in Para No 4 by detail perusing of the Books of Accounts of the appellant that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave to add, alter, adduce or amend any ground or grounds on or before the date of hearing of the appeal." 3. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has made a submission of paper book and written notes along with annexures dated 15.03.2024 whereby certain additional evidence have been brought on record for the first time before the Tribunal under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "ITAT Rules"). 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee had filed its return on 22.09.2014 reporting a total income of Rs. 17,06,820/-. In the course of assessment proceedings, Ld. AO observed from the books of account that assessee had received as well as repaid certain unsecured loans during the year....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 269SS & 269T of the Act. He thus, added this amount to the total income of the assessee while concluding the assessment. 4.2. Subsequently, revisionary proceedings were invoked u/s. 263 by Ld. PCIT, Kolkata wherein it was observed that the addition/disallowance made u/s. 269SS and 269T by the Ld. AO is not in accordance with the said provisions. He thus, held that the said assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue u/s. 263 for which the order was passed on 28.12.2018. The observation and direction given by the Ld. Pr. CIT in this respect are contained in para 8 and 9 which is extracted below: "8. The plain reading of the sections itself makes it clear that the Assessing Officer misconstrued the meaning ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taken unsecured loan of Rs. 32,99,000/- recorded in his books of account, which in absence of any verifiable documents were held to be the own money of the assessee. He thus, made an addition of Rs. 32,99,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act. In the same assessment he also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s. 271D and 271E of the Act for violation of provisions of section 269SS and 269T separately. This effect giving assessment was completed u/s. 144 read with 263 and 143(3) of the Act, dated 28.12.2019. 4.4. Assessee contested this addition before the Ld. CIT(A), who by noting that assessee has not given any documents in respect of source of unsecured loans of Rs. 32,99,000/- and by placing reliance on one decision of ITAT, Delhi in the case of K....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... taken and given in cash in excess of Rs. 20,000/- during the year which ought to have been treated in accordance with the provisions of section 269SS and 269T of the Act as directed Ld. PCIT while setting aside the original assessment completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. From the perusal of the orders of the authorities below, we note that they have been passed ex parte or in absence of adequate documentary evidence which could not be placed by the assessee before them. Further, assessee has now placed on record, certain documentary evidence by taking resort to Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules. 7.1. Considering the facts as discussed above and the material on record, we find it proper to remit the matter back to the file of Ld. AO for verificatio....