DR. LAXMI AGARWAL,KOLKATA V. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 22, KOLKATA

ITA 532/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Dr. Laxmi Agarwal, a doctor by profession, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which confirmed the AO's addition of Rs.28,27,000 as unexplained income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and its taxation at 60% under Section 115BBE. The Tribunal found that the cash deposits made during the demonetization period were from her accounted professional receipts and not unexplained income. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and allowed the appeal in ITA No.2307/KOL/2024. The appeal in ITA No.532/KOL/2025 was dismissed as it was a duplication of the first appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772419 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARCHANA GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: P.J. BHIDE
• Keywords: Set aside; Capital expenditure

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.2307/KOL/2024 आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.532/KOL/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Dr. Laxmi Agarwal, 6, Ram Mohan Saha Lane, Burtolla, Kolkata-700006 Vs The ACIT, Circle-22, Kolkata PAN No. :ACMPA 8985 E (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri P.J.Bhide, FCA रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms. Archana Gupta, Addl.CIT-Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 26/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM : ITA No.2307/KOL/2024 is filed by the assessee against the order dated 22.09.2023, passed by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-2018. ITA No.532/KOL/2025 is a duplication of ITA No.2307/KOL/2024. 2. At the outset we note that there is delay of 473 days in filing the appeal by the assessee.The ld counsel submitted that the assessee has filed the appeal against the appeal effect order passed by the ld. AO giving effect to the appellate order. This appeal is also listed today. The bench on the last hearing directed the bench that this appeal is not maintainable as the assessee should have filed the appeal against the order of appellate authority. Accordingly the appeal was filed by the assessee with a delay of 478 days for which the assessee can not be held Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.532/KOL/2025 ITA No.2307/KOL/2024 2 responsible. Therefore considering the reasons to be bonafide and genuine , we are inclined to condone the delay. 3 First we shall take the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2307/KOL/2024. The only issue raised by the assessee in Ground No.1 out of the various grounds of appeal, is against the action of the ld. CIT(A) holding that the AO was justified in determining the tax payable by the assessee on the duly accounted for professional receipts of Rs.28,27,000/- as per Section 115BBE of the Act. Grounds No.2 & 3 are in support of the ground No.1. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a doctor by profession and filed her return of income on 27.10.2017 declaring total income at Rs.71,29,150/-, which was selected for scrutiny. Subsequently the AO completed the assessment determining total income of the assessee at Rs.1,02,39,650/- after making two additions i.e addition u/s.68 of the Act and addition on account of capital expenditure of Rs.4,05,000/-. 5. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee has deposited the cash during the demonetization period and in the Financial Year 2015-2016, the assessee’s receipt was Rs.6.63 lakhs and cash deposits were Rs.4,10,000/-. It was the observation of the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has been periodically depositing the unutilised cash in bank. It was further observed by the ld.CIT(A) that the other factors relating to the reason for retention of cash in hand and its deposit Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.532/KOL/2025 ITA No.2307/KOL/2024 3 after demonetization could not conclusively prove that the said deposit represents receipts of fees. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) held that the source of cash deposit stood unexplained. Accordingly, upheld the addition made by the AO treating the same as unexplained income and also held the same is liable for taxation at the rate of 60% by virtue of provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act. 4. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, we find that the assessee is a doctor by profession. As per the AO the assessee has made cash deposits during demonetization period from 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 amounting to Rs.28,27,000/- appearing in the bank account of the assessee which remained unexplained u/s.68 of the Act and added the same to the total income. Accordingly the AO assessed the income of the assessee and taxed u/s.115BBE of the Act at the rate of 60%, which has also been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). In our opinion, the said action of the CIT(A) is not correct as the assessee was having income from her medical profession only and the assessee has explained the same during the course of assessment proceedings that the fees were received in cash was only 1/3rd of total fees. In this regard, the assessee has also provided the cash receipt and deposit in the bank which has been tabulated by the AO in its order at page 5. Therefore, it is clear that the amount deposited in the bank account was her accounted money. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) by holding that provisions of section 115BBE of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.532/KOL/2025 ITA No.2307/KOL/2024 4 the Act are not applicable in the assessee’s case. Thus, this appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2307/KOL/2024 is allowed. 5. With regard to ITA No.532/KOL/2025, at the outset, it was brought to our notice that this appeal is not maintainable and therefore may be dismissed as withdrawn. Accordingly we dismiss the same. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2307/KOL/2024 is allowed and ITA No.532/KOL/2025 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26/08/2025. SD/- (DUVVURU RL REDDY) SD/- (RAJESH KUMAR) उपाध्यक्ष / VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER कोलकाता Kolkata; ददनाांक Dated 26/08/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant- 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent- 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 5. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यापपत प्रतत //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "