INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-30(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KAMALA NAYAN VALA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2186/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 September 2026AY 2012-135 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to provide any documentary evidence to support the claim that the assessee received the alleged amount from M/s Bhawani Enterprises. Therefore, the addition could not be sustained.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer reopened the case and made an addition of Rs. 14,01,379/- under Section 68, treating it as unexplained money from an undisclosed source. The assessee denied any transactions with the alleged entity, M/s Bhawani Enterprises.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made under Section 68 is sustainable without any corroborating evidence from the Assessing Officer, and if the assessee's denial of transactions is sufficient to delete the addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri V.D. Parmar, AR
For Respondent: Shri Sandip Mandal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 08.09.2026Pronounced: 11.09.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2186/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2012-13

ITO, Ward-30(1), Kolkata Vs. Kamala Nayan Vala 7A, 7th Floor, Vivek Vihar, 13/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Kolkata-700019 [PAN: ABNPV9611N] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V.D. Parmar, AR Respondent by : Shri Sandip Mandal, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 08.09.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 11.09.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This Appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 10.02.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) pertaining to the Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

There is a delay of 43 days in filing the Appeal. The Revenue filed an application for condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, the delay of 43 days in filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned.

ITA No.2186/Kol/2026 Kamala Nayan Vala; A.Y: 2012-13 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the case of the Assessee was reopened and an Assessment order came to be passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by making an addition of Rs.14,01,379/- u/s 68 of the Act on the ground that the said amount received by the Assessee remained unexplained and treated the same as unexplained money from undisclosed source of the Assessee. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 02.12.2019, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) order dated 10.02.2026, allowed the Appeal of the Assessee by deleting the addition. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue preferred the present Appeal.

4.

The Ld. DR vehemently submitted that the addition has been made based on the specific and credible information received from Investigation Wing of the Department that, in the case of M/s Bhawani Enterprises, it was revealed the accommodation entry transactions in the name of the Assessee and the Ld. CIT(A) only based on the bank statement produced by the Assessee, without conducting any independent verification deleted the addition. Thus, by relying on the order of the Assessing Officer, sought for allowing the Appeal.

5.

Per contra, the Ld. AR submitted that at no point of time Assessee had any transactions with the said entity M/s Bhawani Enterprises. Further submitted that the Assessee has specifically Page | 2

ITA No.2186/Kol/2026 Kamala Nayan Vala; A.Y: 2012-13 requested the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 17.01.2019 to provide the copy of the alleged transactions with M/s Bhawani Enterprises in ICICI Bank, wherein the Assessee has specifically denied any such transactions from the said entity. The Ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition as the addition has been made without there being any material against the Assessee to prove that the Assessee had received an unaccounted amount of Rs.14,07,379/- from M/s Bhawani Enterprises. Thus, relying on the findings and the conclusion of the Ld. CIT(A), sought for dismissal of the Appeal of the Revenue.

6.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The case of the Assessee was reopened based on the information was received from DDI [Investigation] Unit-4(2), Kolkata that M/s Bhawani Enterprises Proprietor concern of Sri Raju Bharti was not filing income tax return, but number of transactions were found where by depositing cash in his account to provide accommodation entries by Cheque was carried out by the said entity and Assessee is one of beneficiary to the extent of Rs.14,01,379/- during the F.Y. 2011-12 from the said concern. During the assessment proceedings, Assessee vide letter dated 17.01.2019, denied having any transactions with M/s Bhawani Enterprises with the ICICI Bank to the tune of amount of Rs.14,01,379/- and also sought for the copy of the relevant transaction alleged by the Page | 3

ITA No.2186/Kol/2026 Kamala Nayan Vala; A.Y: 2012-13 Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer has not provided the copy of the alleged transactions made by the Assessing Officer with M/s Bhawani Enterprises. During the first Appellate proceedings, Assessee has furnished bank re-conciliation statement, copy of the bank account details and once again contended that the Assessee never received a sum of Rs.14,01,379/- as alleged by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that in the absence of any specific bank account details or evidence brought on record by the Assessing Officer for having credited the above sum into the Assessee’s bank account, the addition could not be sustained, accordingly delete the addition. Even before us, the Department has not produced any document to show that Assessee had indeed received the said amount of Rs.14,01,379/- from M/s Bhawani Enterprises. In view of the same, we find no error or infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 11.09.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (RAKESH MISHRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 11.09.2026 DP, PS

ITA No.2186/Kol/2026 Kamala Nayan Vala; A.Y: 2012-13 Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR)

//TRUE COPY//

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →