SMITA MITTAL,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29, KOLKATA

The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:

That even on merits of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.9,99,850/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, failing to appreciate that the appellant had already offered the sum of Rs. 9,93,098/- (being the actual profit) to tax in the ROI and hence the impugned addition results in taxing the same receipt twice, which is impermissible in law.

That the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in rejecting the appellant’s reconciliation of Interest Income vs. Other Sources by merely citing minor figure mismatches and Form-26AS, without considering the appellant's explanation regarding clerical errors in the ITR utility/Form where multiple heads of income (Salary/Commodity Profit/Interest) were merged due to technical limitations of the form.

That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 by treating genuine commodity profits as artificial profit by not appreciating that the Ld. A.O. failed to bring on record any evidence to prove that the appellant's own unaccounted money was routed back, despite the appellant having provided evidence of transactions through Contract Notes issued by M/s. A.N. Commodity Broking Pvt. Ltd., a recognized member of NMCE, bank statements etc.

That the Ld. revenue authorities by arbitrary rejection of documentary evidence erred in placing undue reliance on general reports of the Investigation Wing while ignoring the specific documentary evidence (Contract Notes, NMCE member details, Bank statements) furnished by the appellant to prove the genuineness of the transactions and in that view of the matter, the addition sustained of Rs.9,99,850/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act deserves to be quashed and the appellant be given such relief as prayed for.

That, the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and/ or rescind any or all of the above grounds."

Brief facts of the case are that the assessment for the impugned assessment year was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 18.02.2012 at the total income of ₹38,70,860/-, which was declared in the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. The return was processed at the total income but the assessment was reopened and the assessee filed the return of income on 14.04.2018 under protest showing the same income as that was computed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The assessment was reopened on the basis of information received from DDIT (Investigation), Unit-3, Kolkata on 31.03.2018 that the survey conducted at the premises of NMCE revealed that the assessee is a beneficiary of the scheme of creating artificial profit of ₹9,99,850/- purportedly received through sub-broker M/s S.A.N. Commodity Broking Pvt. Ltd. It was submitted that the commodity profit was included in the income shown under the head ‘any other income of profit and loss account’ along with the interest received and a sum of ₹11,50,556/- are shown as income under the head ‘other sources’. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') passed an order alleging that the assessee could not reconcile the interest income claimed to have been received or substantiate that ₹9,93,098/- was not part of the income from other sources and presumed that the assessee did not offer the commodity profit of ₹9,99,850/- and considered the same as unexplained income under the head ‘income from other sources’. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A). It is submitted in the brief synopsis of arguments that the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) in the quantum proceedings got confused with the facts and confirmed the addition and also missed taking into account the interest income of the minor child included in the hands of the assessee while reconciling the interest income offered to tax under the head ‘other sources’ with the Form No. 26AS. The Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) had asked the assessee to produce the bank statement in order to establish that the commodity profit had been included in the sum of ₹30,67,155/-. The assessee had offered an income of ₹9,85,835/- only as interest income in her hands while as per Form No. 26AS, the assessee had received total interest of ₹20,13,480/- from two parties. As the assessee was not able to establish with the bank statement and narration that the commodity transaction profit had been included in the income from other sources of ₹30,67,155/- in spite of sufficient opportunities provided, the addition made by the Ld. AO treating the same as unexplained income was confirmed by the Ld. Addl./Joint CIT(A) and the appeal was dismissed.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. Our attention was drawn by the Ld. AR to the paper book containing the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Our attention was also drawn to pages 85 and 86 of the paper book and page 89 being the profit and loss account where the commodity profit had been shown. It was submitted that as per page 2 of the assessment order, the Ld. AO had treated the whole of other income as income from other sources as per the return of income. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was not properly represented before the Ld. Addl./Joint CIT(A) and requested that the appellate order may be set aside and the assessment proceedings may be restored before the Ld. AO so that proper submission could be made and the issues may be explained properly.

The Ld. DR requested that the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) may be confirmed as the required reconciliation were not filed despite the opportunities provided to do so.

We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Since the assessee could not reconcile that the income from commodity profit was included in the income from other sources shown, the Bench was of the view that one more opportunity should be provided to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) is hereby set aside and the issue is remanded before the Ld. to is directed to afford an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is directed to file the evidence and the required reconciliation and thereafter, the Ld. AO shall frame the assessment as per law. Hence, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18th August, 2026. [Yogesh Kumar US] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 18.08.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)

CIT-

CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

Guard File. //// By order