DIPYAMAN DUTT,KOLKATA V. I.T.O.,WARD-7(1), KOLKATA

ITA 2817/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Dipyaman Dutt, a caterer, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, which confirmed the addition of 36,62,530 to his income for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The addition was initially made by the AO due to unexplained cash deposits of 68,00,000 in the assessee's bank account. The CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal by deleting 31,37,470 of the addition but sustained the rest. The Tribunal, referencing a decision by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, ruled that once the assessee has declared income under Section 44AD, no further explanation for cash deposits is required, thus allowing the appeal in full.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 837903 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 26-11-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income-tax-II vs. Surinder Pal Anand [2010] 192 Taxman 264 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2011] 242 CTR 61 (Punjab & Haryana)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ADITYA BIKRAM
• Assessee Lawyers: K K KHEMKA
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 142(1); 44AD

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA No. 2817/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dipyaman Dutt P-19, Darga Road, Park Circus, West Bengal 700017 Vs. ITO, Ward 7(1) P-7, chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AGPPD7156B Assessee by : Shri KK Khemka, AR Revenue by : Shri Aditya Bikram, DR Date of hearing: 05.02.2026 Date of pronouncement: 17.02.2026 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 19.11.2025 for the AY 2014-15. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal is against the confirmation of addition of ₹36,62,530/- by the ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO in respect of cash deposits during the year. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 12.02.2014, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, along with questionnaire were duly issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee furnished before the ld. AO all the details and information as called for. During the year the assessee deposited cash of ₹68 lacs in his bank account. Accordingly, Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA No. 2817/KOL/2025 Dipyaman Dutt; A.Y. 2014-15 the AO called upon the assessee to explain the same. The assessee is engaged in the business of catering and was duly issued trade license by Kolkata Municipal Corporation, a copy of which is available at page no.9 of the Paper Book. The assessee has filed the return of income u/s 44AD of the Act. The reply of the assessee did not find favour with the AO and he added the entire cash deposit of ₹ 68,00,000/- to the income of the assessee on the ground that the assessee could not satisfactorily explain the source. 4. In the appellate proceedings lde. CIT(A) after taking into account the evidences and submissions of the assessee , partly allowed the appeal by deleting the addition to the tune of ₹ 31,37,470/-. 5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee is running a catering business under trade license in the name of CRUMBILICIOUS-DIPYAMAN DUTT No. 0062576 for F.Y. 2013-14 dated 17.06.2023. During the year, the assessee disclosed total turnover of ₹65,68,500/- and returned a profit of ₹5,56,133/- u/s 44AD of the Act on presumptive basis. The assessee is not maintaining any books of accounts. The ld. CIT (A) has allowed the relief to the assessee only to the extent of debit entries in the bank account of the assessee, however, the ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee has filed the return of income on presumptive basis and this is also undisputed that the assessee is engaged in the business of catering etc. under proper trade license issued by Municipal Corporation, Kolkata. The assessee submitted before us that the money was received from the business in the ordinary course of business and therefore, the ld. CIT (A) has not appreciated the fact correctly and only deleted the addition to the tune of ₹31,37,470/- based upon debit entries in the bank account as against the total disallowance and addition made by the ld. AO of ₹68 Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 ITA No. 2817/KOL/2025 Dipyaman Dutt; A.Y. 2014-15 lacs. Therefore, the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) partly sustaining the addition is not reasonable and cannot be sustained. Moreover, the assessee already disclosed the profit rate at the rate of 8% on the gross receipts. Consequently, we are not in concurrence with the conclusion drawn by the order of ld. CIT (A) sustaining the addition especially for the reason that the assessee has filed the return of income u/s 44AD of the Act, which has been overlooked by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 6. In our opinion, once the assessee has opted the presumptive scheme and offered the income u/s 44AD of the Act, no other addition can be made. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Courtin case of Commissioner of Income- tax-II vs. Surinder Pal Anand [2010] 192 Taxman 264 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2011] 242 CTR 61 (Punjab & Haryana)[29-06-2010], wherein it has been held that once the assessee has shown the income at the rate of 8% u/s 44AD of the Act then there is no obligation to explain each and every entry of cash deposit in the bank account. We also note that the addition has been made by the ld. AO merely on the ground that there was non-compliance on the part of the assessee. Under these circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the order of the ld. CIT (A) and direct the ld. AO to delete the addition. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 17.02.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 ITA No. 2817/KOL/2025 Dipyaman Dutt; A.Y. 2014-15 Copy of the Order forwarded to: BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. Printed from counselvise.com "