GOUTAM DEY,BARASAT V. ITO, WARD 50(1), KOLKATA

ITA 2211/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Goutam Dey, a chicken seller in Howrah Municipality, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed the addition of 46,97,16,720 to his income as unexplained cash credit. The addition was initially made by the AO based on cash deposits in Dey's bank accounts, as reflected in Form 26AS. The Tribunal noted that the Form 26AS was revised, and the actual cash deposit was 23,55,98,960, which was consistent with the assessee's reported turnover. The Tribunal criticized the high-pitched assessment made without proper basis and directed the deletion of the addition.

• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Kolkata
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUCHETA CHATTOPADHYAY
• Assessee Lawyers: SOUMITRA CHOUDHURY
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained cash credit; FORM 26AS
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA No. 2211/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Goutam Dey South Habra, Barasat, North 24-pgs., West Bengal-743263 Vs. ITO Ward-50(1), Kolkata Uttarapan Complex, Manictala Civic Centre, Kolkata-700054 West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. ADFPD9154L Assessee by : Ms. Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, ARs Revenue by : Shri Sucheta Chattopadhyay, DR Date of hearing: 18.02.2026 Date of pronouncement: 27.03.2026 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 03.09.2025 for the AY 2018-19. 2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he has not pressed ground nos.2,3 and 4 and hence, dismissed. 3. Ground no.1 is general in nature. 4. The issue raised in ground nos.5,6,7,8 and 9 is against the confirmation of addition of ₹46,97,16,720/- by the ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO on account of cash deposit in the bank account during the year by treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, without rejecting the books of account u/s 145(3) of the Act by o applying the Section 115BBE of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA No. 2211/KOL/2025 Goutam Dey; A.Y. 2018-19 5. The facts in brief are that the assessee is dealing and selling chicken under Howrah Municipal/ Chick Seller and during the year filed the return of income showing total income of ₹20,07,580/- filed on 13.03.2019. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices along with questionnaire issued and served upon the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. AO noted that the assessee has maintained bank accounts with Bank of Baroda and PNB, wherein the assessee has deposited a huge cash as apparent from Form 26AS. The AO noted that the assessee has deposited cash amounting to ₹46,97,16,720/- into the Punjab National bank. The assessee also submitted before the ld. AO the computation of income, details of cash deposits to be out of sale proceeds along with audited balance sheet and profit and loss account. However, the ld. AO noted that there were deposits of ₹46,97,16,720/- in the bank account whereas the opening balance was ₹2,74,749/- and total turnover as per ITR was ₹38,38,33,413/- and hence, there is a different of ₹8,56,08,558/-. The accordingly called upon the assessee to explain the same. The assessee did not reply the ld. AO and he added the entire cash as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act to the income of the assessee and applied a rate of tax of 60% in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act dated 24.01.2021. 6. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) confirmed the order of the ld. AO when the assessee did not appear or responded before the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 7. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee is a chick seller in the Howrah Municipality. The ld. AO on the basis of form 26AS doubted the deposit of total cash during the year of ₹46,97,16,720/- into the Punjab Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 ITA No. 2211/KOL/2025 Goutam Dey; A.Y. 2018-19 National bank and added the same to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. The sole basis for making the addition was Form 26AS. The assessee produced Form 26AS before us which is extracted below:- Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 ITA No. 2211/KOL/2025 Goutam Dey; A.Y. 2018-19 8. We note that the information relied on by the ld. AO qua cash deposit into the bank account of the assessee was reversed in the in the said form 26AS and thereafter correct cash deposited in the current account was stated as ₹23,55,98,960/-. We note that the total turnover of the assessee as disclosed in the audited books of account were ₹38,38,33,413/-. The assessee has also furnished before us the month wise details of cash, cheque/ RTGS into the bank account from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018, which are extracted below:- Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 ITA No. 2211/KOL/2025 Goutam Dey; A.Y. 2018-19 9. Therefore, the very basis of making addition by the ld. AO of cash deposited into the bank account of the assessee is wrong. The said entries were revised in the Form 26AS. Therefore, the addition made by the ld. AO have no legs to stand. In our opinion, though the assessee has not complied with the notices issued by the ld. CIT (A). We have perused and examined the details and documents placed before us and observe that the cash deposited into the bank account was out of cash sales. This being open and shut case and therefore not being restored to the file of CIT(A). In view of the above facts we are deciding the appeal at this stage only as the department has made a high pitched assessment that too without any basis on wrong facts and without any application of mind. Consequently, we set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) and direct the ld. AO to delete the addition. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 27.03.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 27.03.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Printed from counselvise.com Page | 6 ITA No. 2211/KOL/2025 Goutam Dey; A.Y. 2018-19 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 "