TRIDIP ROY,PORT BLAIR V. I.T.O., WARD - 3(4), PORT BLAIR

ITA 1856/KOL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Tridip Roy, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had confirmed the addition of Rs.25,22,500 as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2015-16. The addition was based on cash deposits made in the assessee's bank accounts during the demonetization period, which the lower authorities treated as unexplained for the earlier assessment year. The Tribunal, after considering the timing of the deposits and the relevant financial year, concluded that the addition was incorrect and allowed the appeal, deleting the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314547 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 144; 68; 44AD

Judgement Text

" ITA No. 1856/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2015-2016) Tridip Roy 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ) I.T.A. No. 1856/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Tridip Roy,…………………………………….………Appellant Diglipur North Andaman, A & N Island, Port Blair, Union Territory of Andaman & Nicobar Island, Pin Code No. 744 202 [PAN:BEHPR1554L] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………….…………...Respondent Ward-3(4), Port Blair, Aayakar Bhawan, VIP Road, Port Blair, Andaman & Nicobar Island, Pin Code No. 744101 Appearances by: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A.R., appeared on behalf of the assessee Ms. Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: February 24, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: May 6th, 2025 O R D E R The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 2nd May, 2024 passed for Assessment Year 2015-16. ITA No. 1856/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2015-2016) Tridip Roy 2 2. The appeal is time barred by 63 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 26th August, 2024 saying that due to illness of his wife and had to accompany her for hospitalization in another Island from Diglipur, North Andaman as well as for taking proper medical care, he was not aware of the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). When the assessee came to know about the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 63 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, I am inclined to condone the delay of 63 days. Hence the delay is condoned. 4. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 declaring total income of Rs.3,54,470/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the reason being ‘whether cash deposit has been made from disclosed sources or not’. The ld. Assessing Officer issued statutory notices to the assessee, but no compliance was made from the side of assessee. Thereafter the assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act on the basis of information available on record. ITA No. 1856/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2015-2016) Tridip Roy 3 5. Aggrieved by the order of ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and after considering the submissions made by the assessee, the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT and raised the following issues:- (1) For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the lower authorities erred in adding the cash deposits of Rs.25,22,500/- by way of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. (2) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the cash deposits of Rs.25,22,500/- made during the demonetization period pertained to the AY 2017-18 was erroneously treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act for the relevant AY 2015-16 and in that view of the matter, the addition being unsustainable deserves to be deleted in full. 7. I have heard both the sides. It was the submission of the assessee that the assessee was engaged in the jewellery business under his proprietorship in the name and style of M/s. Bichitra Jewellers. The assessee disclosed total turnover of Rs.44,85,250/- and computed his income on presumption basis under section 44AD of the Act disclosing Rs.3,62,067/- as income being 8.07% of his disclosed turnover. The total cash balance as on 31.03.2015 had been shown at Rs.8,29,972/-. The assessee had deposited cash of Rs.25,22,500/- in his three Bank accounts, though the assessee filed his submissions that the total cash deposit was relating to earlier income/savings only. The ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that the ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(Appeals) have not considered the submissions made by the ld. assessee and ITA No. 1856/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2015-2016) Tridip Roy 4 the total deposited amount of Rs.25,22,500/- in the Bank account was treated as unexplained and added back to the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 2015-16 under section 68 of the Act. He further submitted that the assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs.25,22,500/- during 9th November, 2016 to 30th December, 2016 in his three Bank accounts. The said amount was related to earlier income/savings only, but the same reply was filed before the ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. Assessing Officer wrongly added this amount of Rs.25,22,500/- to the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 2015-16. Therefore, both the lower authorities were wrong in making the addition of Rs.25,22,500/- for the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee failed to explain the source and the ld. Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs.25,22,500/- for the assessment year 2017-18 since the assessee has deposited the amount of Rs.25,22,500/- during financial year 2016-17. Therefore, he pleaded to set aside the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 8. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders passed by the lower authorities. 9. Heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has deposited an amount of Rs.25,22,500/- in his three bank accounts. The three Bank accounts of the assessee enumerated as under:- Sl. No. Name of the Bank Account No. Amount deposited (in Rs.) ITA No. 1856/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2015-2016) Tridip Roy 5 1. Axis Bank Ltd. 9110100534370 Rs.7,00,000/- 2. State Bank of India 11741211699 Rs.8,22,500/- 3. Syndicate Bank 99133070001640 Rs.10,00,000/- Admittedly all the cash deposits were made during the financial year 2016-17 relevant to assessment year 2017-18, but the ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(Appeals) wrongly added the cash deposits of Rs.25,22,500/- during assessment year 2015-16. Therefore, I am of the firm view that the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer is not acceptable for the assessment year 2015- 16. The ld. Assessing Officer wrongly made the addition of Rs.25,22,500/- and added to the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 2015-16. Therefore, the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer is hereby deleted. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 06/05/2025. Sd/- (Duvvuru RL Reddy) Vice-President (KZ) Kolkata, the 6th day of May, 2025 Copies to :(1) Tridip Roy, Diglipur North Andaman, A & N Island, Port Blair, Union Territory of Andaman & Nicobar Island, Pin Code No. 744 202 ITA No. 1856/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2015-2016) Tridip Roy 6 (2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Port Blair, Aayakar Bhawan, VIP Road, Port Blair, Andaman & Nicobar Island, Pin Code No. 744101 (3) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi; (4) CIT - , Kolkata; (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard File TRUE COPY By order Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Laha/Sr. P.S. "