SAMANTA EYE CARE,WEST MIDNAPORE vs. I.T.O., WARD - 38(1), WEST MIDNAPORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the statement made during the survey has no evidentiary value without corroboration and set aside the addition. It also held that the delay in uploading the tax audit report was a technical breach and a reasonable cause, thus deleting the penalty.
What were the facts?
During a survey, the assessee disclosed additional income of ₹1,23,32,127/- which was not offered in the return. The Assessing Officer added this amount as unexplained money. The assessee also faced a penalty for not furnishing the tax audit report on time.
What were the issues?
Whether an addition can be made solely based on a statement recorded during a survey without corroborating evidence? Whether a delay in uploading a tax audit report constitutes a reasonable cause for waiving penalty?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 133A,Section 271B,Section 273B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM
Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:
These appeals are preferred by the assessee against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 27.11.2025 for the AY 2019-20 which in turn arises out of assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 23.9.2021 and dated 27.11.2025 which arises out of the order passed u/s 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 30.03.2022. 2. The only issue raised in various grounds of appeal is against the confirmation of addition of ₹1,23,32,127/- by the ld. CIT
ITA No. 3168 & 475/KOL/2025 Samanta Eye Care; A.Y. 2019-20 (A) as mad
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026