Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Kolkata Partha Chakraborty , Birbhum vs Acit, Circle 50(1), Kolkata on 6 September, 2019 आयकर अपील य अधीकरण, यायपीठ "C" कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH "C" KOLKATA Before Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member ITA No.2585Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 201415 Partha Chakraborty बनाम ACIT, Circle50(1) C/o Subash Agarwal & / Kolkata Assocaites, Advocates V/s . Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2 n d Floor, Kolkta69 [PAN No.ADQPC 5578 E] अपीलाथ /Appellant .. यथ /Respondent अपीलाथ क ओर से/By Appellant Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate यथ क ओर से/By Respondent Dr. P.K Srihari, CITDR सुनवाई क तार ख/Date of Hearing 21062019 घोषणा क तार ख/Date of Pronouncement 06092019 आदे श /O R D E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee's appeal for assessment year 201415 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)15, Kolkata's order dated 14.09.2017 passed in case No.10340/CIT(A)15/1617(1)/Kol, involving proceedings u/s/. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short 'the Act'. Heard both the parties. We proceed to adjudicate assessee's main appeal itself ITA No.2585/Kol/2018 with the consent of both the parties. The assessee's stay application No.07/Kol/2019 is not pressed during the course of hearing therefore. ITA No.2585/Kol/2018 Assessment Year 201415 Partha Chakraborty Vs ACIT,Cir50(1) Kol. Page 2 2. Coming to main appeal ITA No.2585/Kol/2018, Mr. Agarwal is fair enough in not pressing for the assessee's first two substantive grounds challenging correctness of the both the lower authorities' action disallowing donation / subscription as well as entertainment expenses of ₹1,445/ and ₹12,075/; respectively. These two substantive grounds are dismissed as not pressed. 3. Next comes the assessee's third substantive grievance that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) have erred in adding his loan amount from M/s Chakra Infrastructure Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as CIL) as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act. 4. We advert to relevant facts as per para6 pages 2 and 3 in assessment order dated 26.12.2016. The Assessing Officer had issued section 133(6) notice to CIL which stood returned back by the Postal Authority "left". He then required the assessee to profile photo id , supportive documents, profit and loss account, balance sheet and return relating to the relevant previous year creditworthiness and the corresponding bank statement thereof. 5. Case file suggests that CIL's director Shri, Pranab KR. Roy appeared before the Assessing Officer on 19.12.2016 alongwith voter ID card, muster data, director's signatory details and unsigned confirmation of account in assessee's name. He stated that CIL profit and loss account, balancesheet, ITR and bank statement for financial year 201314 was not readily available. The Assessing Officer observes that assessee thereafter filed the other entities ledger copy as on 31.03.2014 with closing balance of ₹6,44,95,068/ after adjusting all credit / debit entries in the relevant previous years. He concluded in this fact that the assessee's failure in getting even the confirmation from the other side invited unexplained cash credits addition u/s68 of the Act. 6. The assessee filed appeal. He placed on record additional submission as well during the lower appellate proceedings. The CIT(A) called for the Assessing Officer's response. The assessee's Assessing Officer submitted his remand report in the lower ITA No.2585/Kol/2018 Assessment Year 201415 Partha Chakraborty Vs ACIT,Cir50(1) Kol. Page 3 appellate proceedings. The CIT(A) holds that as per the Assessing Officer's action raising various issues in the remand report, it emerged that Shri Roy had not filed his return for assessment year 201415. The assessee's sale agreement with the said entity was unregistered firm, the Stock Exchange Board of India, SEBI had barred its director from capital market with further direction to refund investors money. The police had filed a case on 09.07.2014 and the department's inspector had found its address as not correct; sufficiently indicated that the impugned addition had been rightly made during the course of assessment. This leaves the assessee aggrieved. 7. We have given our thoughtful contentions to rival pleadings against and in