SUPRIYA ROY,AGARTALA V. ITO, WARD-1, AGARTALA, AGARTALA

ITA 101/GTY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Supriya Roy, a retail trader of mustard oil, against the order of the CIT(A) which confirmed the additions made by the AO for the assessment year 2018-2019. The additions were based on discrepancies found during a survey conducted on the assessee's premises, which included a shortfall in stock and an excess in cash, along with an undisclosed income of 1.3% of the total turnover. The tribunal noted that the statement used for these additions was given by the assessee's husband, who was also an employee, and was not retracted. The tribunal concluded that the additions were not justified based on this statement alone.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 833796 (ITAT-GUWAHATI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2025
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANTOSH KARNANI
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY MODY

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, गौहाटी न्यायपीठ,गुवाहाटी IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GAUHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, AM (THROUGH : VIRTUAL HEARING) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.101/GTY/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) Supriya Roy, Ram Thakur Trading, Central Road, Agartala, Tripura-799001 Vs. ITO Ward-1, Agartala PAN No. : ACBPR 7501 G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Sanjay Mody, AR राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Santosh Karnani, Sr. DR सुिवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 03/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement 03/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, JM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Chennai, dated 13.12.2023 for the assessment year 2018- 2019. 2. At the time of hearing the Ld.AR drew our attention to pages 9 to 16 of the paper book which was copy of the written submission filed. The same reads as follows:- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.101/GTY/2025 2 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.101/GTY/2025 3 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.101/GTY/2025 4 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.101/GTY/2025 5 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.101/GTY/2025 6 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.101/GTY/2025 7 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.101/GTY/2025 8 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.101/GTY/2025 9 3. It was submission that the assessee is a retail trader of mustard oil. It was submission that there was a survey on the premises of the assessee on 21/03/2018. In the course of survey, the statement of the assessee’s husband, who is also an employee was taken. The Ld.AR drew our attention to the pages 1 to 5 of the paper book which is reads as follows:- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.101/GTY/2025 10 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.101/GTY/2025 11 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.101/GTY/2025 12 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.101/GTY/2025 13 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.101/GTY/2025 14 4. It was submission that this was statement recorded along with the stock statement and the cash statement at the time of survey. It was submission that in the statement the survey team had found that there was shortfall of stock of Rs.5,41,212/- and cash availability surplus of Rs.5,22,308/-. It was submission that it was specifically mentioned that the sale proceeds has not been deposited in the bank on account of survey. In the course of survey, the survey team took a statement from the said employee being a husband of the assessee that the there is a difference of Rs.5,22,308/- in respect of the cash. The difference in the value of stock Rs.5,41,212/- and over and above that 1.30% of the total turnover was treated as the undisclosed of the income of the assessee at Rs.9,94,500/-. In the return filed by the assessee, the turnover was shown by the assessee at Rs.7,70,95,391/- and net profit of Rs.9,65,360/- was shown. The alleged difference in cash and difference in the value of stock was not shown. The AO made an addition of the said two items to an extent of Rs.9,78,584/- and an addition of Rs.9,94,500/- as the undisclosed income of the assessee. It was the submission that, at the outset, in the course of itself the employee of the assessee being husband had categorically given the breakup of the differences. It was further submission that the statement of the assessee’s husband would not, first of all, have been taken. The stock statement and cash availability statement clearly showed that the assessee had sold the products and the sales proceeds were found in cash. The reasons for the cash being found was also explained. The assessee having also disclosed a net profit further addition of Rs.9,94,500/- was not called Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.101/GTY/2025 15 for. It was the prayer that the addition as made by the AO and as confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) is liable to be deleted. 5. In reply, the Ld.Sr. DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and CIT(A). It was submission that the wife being assessee was only a name lender and the actual business was being conducted by the assessee’s husband. It was submission that the statement given by the husband has also not been retracted. It was further submission that the statement should be considered in its entirety and the assessee’s husband having offered the additional income, the same should be brought a tax. He vehemently supported the order of the AO and CIT(A). 6. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the statement has been recorded from the employee of the assessee and it is specifically recorded as such that the said employee is husband of the assessee does not may be any difference and, therefore, the addition cannot be made on the statement recorded from an employee of the assessee. The facts also clearly show that in reply to the question no.6 and 7, the employee has explained the difference in the stock and the surplus cash found. It is also noticed that the statement records that an additional net profit is being offered of 1.3%, therefore, how an employee can give such declaration even if he is the husband of the assessee, does not stand to reason. This being so, as the addition having made on the basis of the statement recorded from the employee of the assessee, the same is unsustainable is liable to be deleted. It must also be mentioned here that it has been categorically been Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.101/GTY/2025 16 admitted by the Ld.AR on the behalf of the assessee that the bank accounts of the assessee are operated by assessee only even the cheque signing is done by the assessee only and not by the said employees, who is the husband of the assessee. The addition as been made by the AO and as confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) stands deleted. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 03/02/2026. Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) लेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER गुवाहाटी Guwahati; दििांक Dated 03/02/2026 प्र.क ु.मि/PKM, Senior Private Secretary आदेश की प्रनिललपप अग्रेपर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : . आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, गुवाहाटी / ITAT, Guwahati 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant- 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent- 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), Guwahati 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 5. ववभागीय प्रनतनिधर्, आयकर अपीलीय अधर्करण, िुंबई / DR, ITAT, Guwahati 6. गार्ा फाईल / Guard file. सत्यावपत प्रनत //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "