SOMNATH SIRCAR,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 22(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 448/KOL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 June 2023AY 2016-20174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to consider the revised balance sheet and correct the inflated figures. The assessee was directed to ensure correct figures were used in subsequent assessment years to avoid benefiting from the error.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed that an addition of Rs. 8,04,17,440/- was made on account of unexplained credits due to a clerical error by his accountant in the balance sheet. The accountant mistakenly inflated figures of inherited bank deposits and capital.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made on account of unexplained credits in the balance sheet was justified, considering the assessee's claim of a clerical error in figures.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

order : June 27, 2023 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 26.07.2022 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

2.

The sole issue raised in this appeal by the assessee is relating to the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.8,04,17,440/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained credits shown in the balance sheet of the assessee. Assessment year: 2016-17 Somnath Sircar 3. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned assessment order to submit that it was explained to the Assessing Officer that the assessee had inherited certain moveable and immovable properties from his uncle Late Prabir Kr. Sircar. That among the said properties, there was a fixed bank deposit of Rs.96,00,000/- in the Bank of Maharashtra. However, the accountant who was a novice mistakenly mentioned the figure of the bank deposit at Rs.9,60,00,000/-. That the ld. counsel for the assessee inviting our attention to the revised balance sheet has submitted that the total bank balance inherited by the assessee by way of will from his uncle Late Prabir Kr. Sircar was Rs.2,66,46,349/-. However, the accountant wrongly mentioned the figure at Rs.10,54,31,188.45/- resulting into the increase in capital of the assessee to the extent of Rs.8.64 crore. The ld. counsel has further submitted that the accountant further committed some mistakes in respect of other bank balances and cash in hand and thereby wrongly mentioned the figures in capital of Rs.8,04,17,440/-. That the aforesaid facts were duly brought to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the aforesaid contention of the assessee observing that the assessee has repeated the aforesaid increase in capital in his income tax return for subsequent year for A.Y 2017-18. The Assessing Officer has observed that if the assessee’s return for the year under consideration would not have come under scrutiny, the assessee would have taken the benefit of the aforesaid mistake and would have shown his balances including the aforesaid figure of Rs.8,04,17,440/-.

4.

We have considered the above submissions of the ld. counsel. Admittedly, the assessee by way of will has inherited moveable and immovable properties from his uncle Late Prabir Kr. Sircar. The assessee

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →