SHRI DAYAL AGARWAL,SILIGURI V. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(4), KOLKATA

ITSSA 85/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri Dayal Agarwal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata, which confirmed the addition of ₹62,60,212 as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, following a search and seizure operation. The Assessing Officer (AO) had added this amount based on the non-disclosure of the source of investment in two plots of land purchased by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the payments for these plots were made from the bank account of the assessee's father, Shri Roshan Lal Agarwal, and were reflected in his balance sheet, thus providing a satisfactory explanation for the source of investment. Furthermore, the Tribunal also addressed an addition of ₹3,03,57,800 made under section 56(2)(vii) of the Act due to undervaluation of the purchase price of the plots, ruling that these were agricultural lands and not capital assets, hence not subject to the provisions of section 56(2)(vii).

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 787466 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 14-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Premchand Jain Vs. ACIT, Mubark Gafur Korabu Vs. ITO, Shri Yogesh Maheswri Vs. DCIT, Shri Ram Prasad Meena Vs. ITO, Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(1), Alwar vs. Trilok Chand Sain, Dipti Garg vs. Income-tax Officer, Pavan Anil Bakeri, Shri Trilok Chand Sain, Yogesh Maheswari, Mubark Gafur Korabu v. ITO, Ward- 2, Pune
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJA SENGUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: SOUMITRA CHOUDHURY
• Keywords: Set aside; Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained investment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Documents seized; Principle of natural justice; Search and seizure; Non compliance
• Section: 142(1); 56; 132; 153A; 56(2)(vii)(b); 56(2); 69; 139; 50C; 2(14)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM IT(SS)A No. 85/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Dayal Agarwal Mangal Palace, Ashrampara, Siliguri, Darjeeling, West Bengal-734001 Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4(4) 110, Shantipally, Aayakar Poorva, Kolkata-700017, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AMQPA8799N Assessee by : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AR Revenue by : Shri Raja Sengupta, DR Date of hearing: 16.10.2025 Date of pronouncement: 19.11.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27, (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 12.06.2025 for the AY 2015-16. 2. The issue raised in ground number 2, 3, 5 and 7, are against the order of ld. CIT (A) confirming the addition of ₹62,60,212/- as made by the ld. AO. on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2.1. The facts in brief are that search action was conducted on the assessee u/s 132 of the Act on 12-08-2015 and subsequent dates. Pertaining to state that assessee did not file any return of income u/s 139(1). Notice u/s 153A was issued on 10.03.2017 but there was no Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 IT(SS)A No. 85/KOL/2025 Shri Dayal Agarwal; A.Y. 2015-16 compliance. Thereafter notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, along with questionnaires were issued which were duly served upon the assessee. The assessee replied to the said notice through authorized representatives. The ld. A.O. observed on the basis of documents seized during the course of search that assessee has purchased two pieces of land aggregating ₹62,60,212/- the details whereof is given in para number 3.1(i) of the assessment order. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to explain the same. The assessee submitted that investment in these two plots were shown in the balance sheet of the assessee. The source of investment was from father of the assessee, Shri Roshan Lal Agarwal, who made the payment on behalf of the assessee from his bank account. However, according to the A.O., the payment through banking channel was not enough as it was not explained by the assessee that Shri Roshan Lal Agarwal had money for making such investment and that no funds were reflected in the bank account of the assessee from his father. Accordingly, the same was treated as unexplained investment and added u/s 69 of the Act. 2.2. The ld. CIT (A) during the appellate proceeding confirmed the addition by observing and holding as under in para 9.2. “9.2.1. I have gone through the assessment order and part of submissions made by the assessee in support of these grounds of appeal. It is known from the assessment order that during the year under consideration the appellant had purchased immovable property (land) for total consideration of Rs.62,60,212/- which was not reported in his respective ITR as he had not filed its original return of income within due date u/s. 139 of the Act. This investment was also not disclosed by the appellant in post search disclosure petition dated 30.10.2015 (search was conducted on 12.08.2015). An order u/s 271F of the Act was also passed in this case for not furnishing the return against the notice u/s 153A of the Act dated 10.03.2017. It is also observed that another show cause notice for initiation of prosecution u/s.276CC of the Act was also issued on 18.08.2017 and served upon the assessee and then only the assessee complied and filed the return of income, declaring total income of Rs. 11,00,000/-, Ultimately, at no stage, the alleged investment of Rs.62,60,212/- in two pieces of lands have been reported by the assessee before the search despite expiry of due date for filing of relevant ITR for the year under consideration. With regard to the said investment, the AO had opined very logically that Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 IT(SS)A No. 85/KOL/2025 Shri Dayal Agarwal; A.Y. 2015-16 the source of such investment remained undisclosed and unexplained for failing to file ITR within due time and before the date of search and seizure carried out u/s.132 of the Act, 1961 and led to make addition of Rs.62,60,212/-, u/s 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. 9.2.2.Further, in his submission, the assessee alleged that proper opportunity was not provided to explain the relevant issues and principle of natural justice was not followed by the AO. However, as noticed from the assessment order, non compliance of several notices was found from the assessee behalf only. A proper opportunity of being heard was also found to be given to the assessee in terms of show cause notice dated 07.12.2017. Therefore, the nature of allegations made in these grounds are not accepted when umpteen opportunity of being heard were provided to the assessee to plead logically with cogent evidences during the appellate proceedings, in addition to the assessment proceedings. 9.2.3. Regarding the source and explanation of investment of Rs. 62,60,212/-, the appellant submitted that he had purchased the land properties out of funds provided by his father Sri Roshan Lal Agarwala and claimed that funds provided by his father cannot be termed as unsatisfactory and unexplained. However, it is observed that the Sri Roshan Lal Agarwala is also a non-filer and had not filed his return of income for the AY 2014-15 & for AY 2015-16 as well. Since, lender of the amount himself is found to be non-filer, genuineness of the investment/transaction cannot said to be explained in terms of provision section 69 of the Act. In the course of appellate proceeding, apart from submitting the computation of income (including the precise balance sheet), the appellant has not submitted any supporting documents to substantiate that the said investment has been made from the explained source of investment, It is also highlighted by the AO that if the search would have not been conducted, the whole income of the assessee as well as the investment would have been remained undisclosed. 9.2.4. In view of the above discussion, it is opined that the AO had correctly assessed the matter involved in these grounds of appeal and rightly made addition of Rs.62,60,212/-u/s 69 of the Act on account of unexplained investment as not disclosed through any valid ITR before the specified date as laid down and prescribed UNDISCLOSED by the statute vide Explanation to the Section 271AAB of the Act for the purpose of imposing penalty too [No timely ITR has been filed either U/s.139(1) or u/s.153A). Hence, addition of Rs.62,60,212/-as made by the A.O. in assessment order is sustained treating concealed because search was initiated after 15 day of July 2012 but before 15.12.2016. Thus, these grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed.” 2.3. The ld. AR submitted before us that the order of ld. CIT (A) is not sustainable under the Act as the money which was spent by the assessee's father Shri Roshan Lal Agarwal by making the payment from his bank account had wrongly been added u/s 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. The ld. CIT(A) submitted that these Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 IT(SS)A No. 85/KOL/2025 Shri Dayal Agarwal; A.Y. 2015-16 investments were reflected in the balance sheet of father of the assessee for the impugned assessment year. The father is also assessable with the same ITO. Therefore, the addition made by the ld. AO and sustained by the ld. CIT (A) is wrong and may be deleted. The ld. CIT (DR), on the other hand, relied on the orders of the authorities below. 2.4. We find that in this case, the assessee has invested in two plots, aggregate investment of which comes to ₹62,60,212. We note from the balance sheet and bank statement of father of the assessee Shri Roshan Lal Aggarwal that the assessee's payments were made for the purchase of two plots of land from the bank account of the father and had duly been shown as payments to the assessee. We observe from the order of the ld. CIT (A) that these arguments were rejected on the ground that the mere making of the payment from the bank account of the father would explain the investment which has been affirmed by the ld. CIT (A). In our opinion, when the source of money is explained as is apparent from the copy of bank account which is available from page number 53 to 55, which was also available before the ld. AO and the copy of balance sheet of father Shri Roshan Lal Agarwal, which is available at page no.4a and 4B, was also available before the ld. AO as well as before the CIT (A) and both the authorities below have failed to take the correct cognizance of the same. Therefore the investment in two plots were fully explained. In our opinion, the additions made by the ld. AO is uncalled for and so is the order passed by the ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, we set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) and direct the ld. AO to delete the addition. The ground numbers 2, 3, 5 and 7 are allowed. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 IT(SS)A No. 85/KOL/2025 Shri Dayal Agarwal; A.Y. 2015-16 3. The second issue raised by the assessee in ground no.6 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) sustaining the addition of ₹3,03,57,800, as made by the ld. AO u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act in respect of undervaluation of purchase price in respect of plots purchased by the assessee. 3.1. The facts in brief are that the ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the assessee had purchased properties for inadequate consideration. The details whereof is given at page no.4 of the assessment order which aggregated to ₹3,03,57,800/-. According to the ld. AO as per the clause (vii) of Section 2 of the section 56, if a person purchases an immovable property for a consideration which is much less than the stamp duty valuation by an amount of more than ₹50,000/- then the difference shall be added under the head income from other sources. Consequently, added the same to the income of the assessee. 3.2. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) confirmed the order of the ld. AO by holding that there is a difference between the price of the stamp duty valuation which was rightly added u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act. 3.3. The ld. AR vehemently submitted before us that the ld. AO did not issue any show cause notice calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act should not be invoked before making the addition. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. AO is duty bound to issue show cause notice stating the reasons for the addition and only after considering the objections of the assessee to show cause, the ld. AO can pass the order. The ld. AR relied on the point no.5 of the instruction no.20/2015 (F. No.225/269//2015-ITA II) dated 29.12.2015 of the CBDT. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 6 IT(SS)A No. 85/KOL/2025 Shri Dayal Agarwal; A.Y. 2015-16 Consequently, the ld. AR submitted that the two piece of land purchased by the assessee do not fall within the definition of capital assets as given u/s 2(14) of the Act, which specifically exclude the agricultural land. The ld. AR submitted that Explanation to Section 56(2)(vii) in clause (d) defines ‘property’ for the purpose of Clause (vii) of Section 56(2) of the Act, specifically mentioned that only capital asset of the assessee being immovable property being land or building or both falls within the definition of property. The ld. AR submitted that this plea taken before the ld. CIT (A) that the plots purchased were agricultural land Pineapple Orchard (Anaras Bagan), which is beyond 7 Kms from municipal limits of Siliguri Municipal Corporation. The ld. AR therefore submitted that the same is not capital asset falling within the definition of Section 2(14) of the Act and therefore not covered under the Provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The ld. AR in defense of his argument relied on the following decisions:- (i) Premchand Jain Vs. ACIT (ITA No.98/JP/2019 order dated 08/06/2020; (ii) Mubark Gafur Korabu Vs. ITO 117 Taxmann.com 828(Pune); (iii) Shri Yogesh Maheswri Vs. DCIT ITA No.300/JP/2019 order dated 18/01/2021 and (iv) Shri Ram Prasad Meena Vs. ITO (ITA No.278/JP/2020 order dated 03/09/2020. 3.4. The learned DR argued that the definition of capital asset is relevant for the purpose of Section 50C of the Act only and not Provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The learned DR submitted that the Provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act are anti abuse measures and accordingly, strict interpretation of the Act is required to be given. The learned DR submitted that the learned CIT (A) rightly relied on the decision of co-ordinate Bench in the case of Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(1), Alwar vs. Trilok Chand Sain [2019] 101 taxmann.com 391 (Jaipur – Trib) vide order dated 07-01-2019, Printed from counselvise.com Page | 7 IT(SS)A No. 85/KOL/2025 Shri Dayal Agarwal; A.Y. 2015-16 wherein a view has been taken that definition of the term property has given in clause (d) to Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act is not relevant for the purpose of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and that it support all the property including the agricultural land. Therefore, the learned DR submitted that ground raised by the assessee may kindly be dismissed. 3.5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act are not applicable to agricultural land. Undisputedly, the land purchased by the assessee is agricultural land and the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decisions as relied by the ld. AR during the course of hearing as stating hereinabove. We also note that the decision cited by the learned CIT (A) in the case of Trilok Chand Sain (supra) has been dealt with in the case of Dipti Garg vs. Income- tax Officer [2024] 162 taxmann.com 347 (Jaipur - Trib.)[30-04-2024], wherein it has been held as under:- From perusal of above provisions, we note that since the agricultural land in question is not a capital asset, section 56(2)(viib) of the Act cannot be invoked. Reliance has been placed on various decision referred (supra). So far as the reliance placed by the ld. DR are concerned, the first decision i.e. Pavan Anil Bakeri (supra), we find that the similar issue has been raised but there is no specific finding of this Tribunal as the details needed to adjudicate the issue were absent thus, the same cannot be relied. So far as the second decision in the case of Shri Trilok Chand Sain (supra), we find that the said decision dated 07.01.2019 and subsequently adjudicating similar issue and recording the applicability of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act vis-a-vis the capital asset, this Tribunal in the case of Yogesh Maheswari (supra) has examined the same after considering the decision in the case of Trilok Chand Jain (supra). Relevant finding of the Tribunal is as under: \"8. We have heard the ld. Counsels of both the parties and have perused the material placed on record. We have also deliberated upon the decisions cited in the orders passed by the authorities below as well as cited before us and we have also gone through the orders passed by the revenue authorities. We observe from perusal of the record that the only ground raised by the assessee before us is challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the findings of the A.O. to the effect that the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act are applicable to the purchase of agricultural land situated outside 8 KM of municipal area. As per the facts of the case, the assessee alongwith Shri Anil Parwal purchased a land Printed from counselvise.com Page | 8 IT(SS)A No. 85/KOL/2025 Shri Dayal Agarwal; A.Y. 2015-16 at village Jatwara, Tehsil Bassi, Jaipur on 08.09.2014. It was also observed that while the DLC value of the said property was Rs. 23,02,400/-, it was purchased for only Rs. 13,10,000/-. Since, the assessee and Sh. Anil Parwal have jointly purchased this property, the share of the assessee comes out as Rs. 6,55,000/- . Similarly, the assessee along with Smt. Nirmala Maheshwari purchased a land at village Bagru Kalan, Tehsil Sanganer, Ajmer Road, Jaipur on 28.04.2014. It was also observed that while the DLC value of the said property was Rs. 48,00,679/-, it was ITA 300 to 302/JP/2019_ Sh. Yogesh Maheshwari v. DCIT & amp; 2 Ors. 10 purchased for only Rs. 29,90,000/-. Since, the assessee and Smt. Nirmala Maheshwari have jointly purchased this property, the share of the assessee comes out as Rs. 14,95,000/-. Consequent thereupon, the A.O. during the assessment proceedings, after issuing statutory notices and seeking reply of the assessee, relied upon Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and held that it applies to any immovable property and thus includes agricultural land beyond specified limit of urban area also and the A.O. also derived support from Section 194-IA of the Act which specifically excludes agricultural land from its purview while mentioning transfer of any immovable property. In order to decide this controversy, it is necessary and imperative to evaluate provisions of definition of income as is given in sub-section (24) of Section 2 of the Act. The sub-section (24) (xv) of Section 2 of the Act includes in income \"any sum of money or value of property referred to in clause (vii) or clause (viia) of subsection (2) of Section 56\". Section 56 (2) (vii) (a) of the Act applies to any sum of money while Section 56 (2) (vii) (b) of the Act applies to value of property and meaning of property is given in explanation (d) to Section 56 (2) (vii) of the Act. The A.O. thereafter relied on provisions of Section 56 (2) (vii) (b) of the Act in respect to property acquired by assessee and reproduced the same in assessment order and only picked the word immovable property from Section 56 (2) (vii) (b) of the Act but the immovable property being also ITA 300 to 302/JP/2019_ Sh. Yogesh Maheshwari v. DCIT & amp; 2 Ors. 11 property read with definition of income in Section 2 (24) (xv) of the Act. Therefore, in our view, Section 56 (2) (vii) (b) of the Act is to be read with explanation (d) wherein mentioning of immovable property in clause 56 (2) (vii) (b) is within the meaning of said explanation (d) to sub-section 56 (2) (vii) of the Act. 9. After having gone through the explanation (d) to Section 56 (2) (vii) (b), which read as under: (d) Property\" [means the following capital asset of the assessee, namely: -] (i) immovable property being land or building or both; (ii) shares and securities; (iii) jewellery; (iv) archaeological collections; (v) drawings; (vi) paintings; Printed from counselvise.com Page | 9 IT(SS)A No. 85/KOL/2025 Shri Dayal Agarwal; A.Y. 2015-16 (vii) sculptures, [***] (viii) any work of art; [or] (ix) bullion;] 10. From the said explanation, it is abundantly clear that immovable property being land or building or both should be capital assets for applying section 56 (2) (vii) (b) of the Act. However, the definition of capital asset is given in Section 2 (14) of the Act. The clause (iii) of Section 2 (14) specifically excludes agricultural land of the description given therein from capital asset which means that agricultural land which are outside 8 KM of the municipal limits are not held to be capital asset and as per the facts of the present case, the agricultural land purchased by the assessee falls in the definition of agricultural land as is given in Section 2 (14) (iii) of the Act, so the same cannot be termed as capital asset. Since the agricultural land purchased by the assessee is not a capital asset, therefore, provisions of Section 56 (2) (vii) (b) of the Act are not applicable as the agricultural land which are not capital asset and are outside the ambit/purview of capital asset. In other words, provisions of Section 56 (2) (vii) (b) of the Act applies only to those immovable properties being land or building or both if it falls within the definition of capital asset. While reaching to this conclusion, we draw strength from the decision of Coordinate Bench of Pune Benches, Pune in the case of Mubark Gafur Korabu v. ITO, Ward- 2, Pune (117 taxmann.com 828) dated 05-04-2019 after considering the decision of Coordinate Bench of Jurisdictional ITAT, Jaipur Benches, Jaipur in case of ITO v. Trilok Chand Jain (449/JP/2018) has held that: - 11. Now, coming to the decision of Jaipur Bench of Tribunal in Trilok Chand Sain (supra), wherein provisions of clause (b) of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act were considered. However, they have failed to take into cognizance the provisions of clause (c) of said section, which talks of property other than immovable property. The Tribunal in para 6 refers only to the definition of 'immovable property' and hold that it is not circumscribed or limited to any particular nature of property. However, clause (c) very clearly talks of property other than immovable property and the word 'property' has further been defined under clause (d) of Explanation thereunder. In the totality of the above said facts and circumstances, there is no merit in reliance placed upon by the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue on the ratio laid down by Jaipur Bench of Tribunal in ITO v. Trilok Chand Sain (supra). In view of clearcut provisions of the Act, we find no merit in the orders of authorities below in making the aforesaid addition in the hands of assessee. The ground of appeal No. 1 raised by assessee is thus, allowed.\" The Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Jaipur Benches, Jaipur in case of Prem Chand Jain v. ACIT, ITA No. 98/JP/2019 dated 08-06-2020 has held that :- \"On reading of provisions of 56(2)(viib), we find that it refers to any immoveable property. Further, provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c) refers to any property, other than an immovable property. The meaning of the term \"property\" has been provided in Explanation (d) to section 56(2)(vii) where the term \"property\" has been defined to mean capital asset of the assessee namely immovable property being land or building or both. It has been contended by the ld AR that all immovable properties of any nature are not covered in the definition of property. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 10 IT(SS)A No. 85/KOL/2025 Shri Dayal Agarwal; A.Y. 2015-16 Only those immovable properties which are held as capital assets and is in nature of land or building or both are only covered u/s 56(2)(vii). We agree with the contention of the ld AR that where the term \"property\" has been defined to mean a capital asset as so specified and where an immovable property as so ITA 300 to 302/JP/2019_ Sh. Yogesh Maheshwari v. DCIT & amp; 2 Ors. 14 specified being land, building or both is not held as an capital asset, it will not be subject to the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. In the instant case, therefore, where the agricultural land doesn't qualify as falling in the definition of capital asset, provisions of section 56(2)(viib) cannot be invoked.\" It is undisputed fact that there is no dispute to the fact that the land purchased by the assessee is an agricultural land outside 8 Km of municipal limits. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the agricultural land purchased by the assessee is not a capital asset, therefore, provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act are not applicable in the present case. Therefore, we direct the A.O. to delete the addition so made.\" 11. On perusal of the above decision and on examination of the facts of the instant case, we find that the same is squarely applicable so much so that in the instant case also the asset in question is an agricultural land not falling in the category of capital asset defined in clause (d) to Explanation to sec. 56(2)(viib) of the Act and, therefore, section 56(2)(viib) of the Act cannot be invoked. Thus, respectfully following the Coordinate bench decision cited supra and taking consistent view, we delete the addition of Rs.38,25,073/- made u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act by setting aside the finding of lower authorities and allow ground nos. 3 and 4 raised by the assessee. 12. Ground no. 5 is general in nature and needs no adjudication. Hence, dismissed. ” 3.6. Therefore, we allow the appeal of the assessee on this issue by setting aside the order of learned CIT (A) on this issue and directing the learned AO to delete the addition. The ground no. 6 is allowed. 4. The assessee has also raised an addition ground which is as under:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition made by the AO in an assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act, u/s 69 of the Act and u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, on the basis of material found in the course of search of other person without taking recourse to the provisions of Sec. 153C of the Act, is bad in law, without jurisdiction and hence requires to be deleted.” 4.1. Since, this is legal issue emanating from the records of the assessment and therefore, the same is admitted. However, we are not adjudicating this issue at the moment as we have already allowed the Printed from counselvise.com Page | 11 IT(SS)A No. 85/KOL/2025 Shri Dayal Agarwal; A.Y. 2015-16 appeal of the assessee on merit. The issue left open to be decided later on if the need arises for the same. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19.11.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 19.11.2025 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 "