आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2021-22 Arun Engineering Udyog Pvt. Ltd……………………………….……….……Appellant

151/A, Cotton Street, Burrabazar, KOl - 700007.

[PAN: AALCA8127A]

vs.

PCIT(Central)-2, Kolkata…………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by:

Shri Miraj D Shah, AR, appeared on behalf of the appellant.

Shri Raja Sengupta, CIT- DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

Date of concluding the hearing : September 04, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : September 11, 2025 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 14.02.2025 of the Principal CIT(Central), Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as the “ld. PCIT”] exercising his revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”].

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income u/s 139 of the Act showing total income at Nil. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the cases of Raj Group & Others and the assessee being one of the persons/concerns related to Giridhari Lal Goenka, was also covered under the search and seizure operation and during the course of search and seizure operation, various incriminating materials/documents were found and seized. The return of income of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the case was assessed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 31.12.2022 at an assessed income as Nil. The ld. PCIT by exercising his revision jurisdiction u/s

263 has found following discrepancies:

(i) issue related to rental income, (ii) issue related to unsecured loan.

2.1 The ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act has found that it is a case of erroneous assessment and it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and accordingly, a show-cause notice u/s 263 of the Act was issued and submission was filed by the assessee but the ld. PCIT after going over the submission set aside the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and directed the Assessing Officer to make necessary verification/enquiry and pass a de novo assessment order.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before us. The ld. AR in the course of argument raised issues related to rental income and unsecured loan. The submission of the ld. AR is that the assessment order cannot be held to be prejudicial as the assessee- company had earned rental income of Rs.6,33,900/- and rent has been earned from the leasing of the property located at 9, Dacres Lane, Kolkata-700069. The assessee has filed registered lease deed, lease agreement. The ld. AR has also enclosed the audited accounts, ITR return, ITR-V for the assessment year 2021-22. He has cited a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sultan Bros. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1964) 5 SCR 807 and also filed a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd., reported in 373 ITR 673 and in the case of Royla Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR

500 (SC).

3.1 So far as the submission of the unsecured loan taken is concerned, the submission of the ld. AR is that in the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished documentary evidences such as source of fund, loan confirmation, copy of bank statement, audited financial statement and ITR acknowledgement and not only that, the Assessing Officer had also issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act and the same were duly complied. Accordingly, the ld. AR stated that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in the aforesaid two issues are bad in law and are liable to be set aside.

4. Contrary to that, the ld. DR supports the impugned order.

5. Upon hearing the submissions of ld. counsels of the respective parties and perusing the materials on record, we find that on the issue of rental income, the assessee is not th