RABIUL ISLAM GAIN,BASIRHAT V. ITO, WARD 49(1), KOLKATA

ITA 1485/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves two separate appeals by Rabiul Islam Gain and Tapan Kumar Pal against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which confirmed the additions of undisclosed cash deposits and interest thereon to their incomes on a protective basis. The Tribunal noted that the cash deposits, amounting to ₹6,93,59,900, and the interest of ₹9,12,342, were actually owned by Mr. Barik Biswas, the employer of both assessees, who had admitted to these transactions and declared them in his balance sheet. The Tribunal found that the additions made to the assessees' incomes were not justified as the real owner of the deposits had been assessed and the amounts were included in his tax returns.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 822818 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 10-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S SANAT KUMAR RAHA
• Assessee Lawyers: S.M. SURANA
• Keywords: Set aside; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 131

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA No.1485/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rabiul Islam Gain Gopalpur, Sangrampur, Basirhat, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal-743286 Vs. ITO, Ward 49(1), Uttarapan Complex, Ultadanga, Maniktala Civic Centre, Kolkata- 700054, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. ANBPG1674J ITA No. 1487/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Tapan Kumar Pal Vill-Parnaihati, P.O. Sangrampur, North 24 paraganas, West Bengal743422 Vs. DCIT, Circle 49(1) Uttarapan Complex, Ultadanga, Maniktala Civic Centre, Kolkata- 700054, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. BASPP1538D Assessee by : Shri S.M. Surana, AR Revenue by : S/Shri Sanat Kumar Raha Sandip Sarkar, DRs Date of hearing: 08.12.2025 Date of pronouncement: 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: These appeals are preferred by two different assessees’ against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi & Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 28.12.2023 & 30.03.2017 for the AY 2013-14. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA Nos. 1485 & 1487/KOL/2025; A.Y. 2013-14 ITA No. 1485/KOL/2025 (RABIUL ISLAM GAINI) 2. At the outset, we note that the appeals of the assessee are barred by limitation by 497 & 2022 days in ITA No. 1485 & 1487/KOL/2025 respectively. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing these appeals. The Ld. D.R on the other hand strongly opposed the condoning of delay as the reasons cited by the assessee’s counsel were not adequate and sufficient. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons and , hence, we condone the delay and adjudicate the appeals. 3. At the time of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee pressed ground nos.2,3 and 4 which are as under:- 2. For that the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of alleged undisclosed cash deposit of ₹6,93,59,900/- on protective basis when no protective addition is allowed in reassessment proceedings. 3. For that the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Alleged undisclosed cash deposit of ₹6,93,59,900/- which cash belonged to Mr. Bark Biswas and was also admitted by him and so declared by him before the IT authorities in his balance sheet. 4. For that the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of interest of ₹9,12,342/- earned on bank deposit on protective basis when the said interest also belonged to Mr. Bark Biswas.” 3.1. The issue raised in ground no.2 and 3 is against the confirmation of addition of ₹6,93,59,900/- on account of cash deposit into the bank account of the assessee which belong to Barik Biswas who admitted the same as belonging to him. 3.2. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 18.03.2014, declaring total income of ₹8,98,140/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 23.07.2014. Later on, the AO received information that assessee had deposited cash into his bank Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 ITA Nos. 1485 & 1487/KOL/2025; A.Y. 2013-14 account and accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 13.03.2015. The assessee filed the return of income on 10.03.2018, declaring income of ₹9,86,090/-. Thereafter, the notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued and duly replied by the assessee. The ld. AO noted that during the year the assessee has received salary from Biswas Enterprises, a proprietorship concern of Bark Biswas with whom the assessee was employed. The ld. AO noted that the assessee has two bank accounts nos. 77377 and 89029, with Axis bank Ltd., Bashirhat Branch, in which a sum of ₹4,41,59,900/- and ₹2,52,00,000/- were deposited. The summon u/s 131 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 09.09.2015, to appear personally on 15.09.2015. The assessee appeared and his statement was recorded. During the course of recording the statement, the assessee was asked about the source of cash deposited and he admitted that he had no knowledge about the cash transactions which were done by his employer Mr. Barik Biswas. The assessee further stated that the account was open at the direction of Mr. Barik Biswas and all the transactions were done by his employer only. Thereafter, the ld. AO referred to the affidavit filed by Shri Bark Biswas dated 26.08.2015, in which he admitted that all the cash transactions were done by him and the entire money belonged to him. However, the ld. AO added amount of cash of ₹6,93,59,900/- substantially in the hands of Barik Biswas and protectively in the hands of the assessee. The assessment was framed u/s 143(3)/ 147 of the Act dated 26.03.2016. 3.3. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal, when no one responded on the various dates of hearing. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 ITA Nos. 1485 & 1487/KOL/2025; A.Y. 2013-14 3.4. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that in this case undisputedly assessee was an employee with Bark Enterprises owned by Mr. Bark Biswas drawing salary from the said firm. We note that the two bank accounts were opened with the Axis bank Limited of Bashirhat Branch in the name of the assessee and the cash was deposited into these accounts amounting to ₹4,41,59,900/- and ₹2,52,00,000/- respectively. There was accrual of interest of ₹8,54,906/ and 57,436/- respectively on these banks. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that he has no knowledge about the cash deposits into his bank accounts and submitted that all his transactions were made by his employer shri Bark Biswas. We further note from affidavit dated 26.08.2016 of Bark Biswas wherein he admitted that the transactions were done by him and the entire money belonged to him. The addition was made in the hands of the Barik Biswas, substantially and in the hands of the assessee protectively. In our opinion, when the Mr Barik Biswas has owned the cash deposits and disclosed the same in his return of income then same cannot be added protectively in the hands of the assessee. We find from the balance sheet of Biswas Enterprises, Proprietor Barik Biswas that these accounts were disclosed in the balance sheet and entire receipt was accounted for and Mr. Bark Biswas was assessed to tax vide order dated 30.03.2016, passed u/s 143(3)/ 147 of the Act, wherein the addition of ₹49,34,07,527/- was made. Considering these facts and circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) and direct the ld. AO to delete the addition as there is no scope for adding the income on protective basis in the hands of the assessee when Mr. Barik Biswas has himself admitted and owned up the cash deposit. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 ITA Nos. 1485 & 1487/KOL/2025; A.Y. 2013-14 3.5. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 1487/KOL/2025 ( TAPAN KUMAR PAL) 4. The issue raised in this appeal is similar to one as decided by us in ITA No. 1485/KOL/2025. Accordingly, our decision would, mutatis mutandis, apply to this appeal of assessee in ITA No. 1487/KOL/2025 as well. Hence, the appeal of assessee is allowed. 5. In the result, the both the appeals of the assessees’ are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23.12.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 23.12.2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS 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 "