AMIT KEDIA,ANDAL vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 3(3), KOLKATA

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata- 21, (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated

For A.Y. 2016-17 ITA No. 3111/KOL/2025 2. Ground no.1 to 8 are not pressed.

3.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 05.10.2016, declaring total income at ₹29,61,590/- . A survey u/s 133A (1) of the Act was conducted on the office and residential premises of the assessee and the records were impounded. A survey team noted that the assessee has made a payment of more than ₹20,000/- in violation of provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act and AO also found that these transactions were not recorded in the regular books of account. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee complied with the said notices by filing the return of income on 24.04.2021, declaring the same income as shown in the original return. Thereafter, the statutory notices along with the questionnaire were duly issued. The assessee filed the objection on 02.12.2021, which were also disposed off by the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. AO summarized the documents impounded during the course of survey operation and noted that aggregate payment of ₹17,76,307/- were made in cash. Accordingly, a show case notice was issued as to why the

3.2. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing and holding as under:-

“8.2.8 In Ground No. 5, the assessee has alleged that figures given in the order did not tally with the cash payments actually made by the assessee during the year. The appellant has stated that the break up given in the order did not match with the cash payments made by the assessee during the year. In order to substantiate this ground, the appellant through his submission made on 22.09.2025, has stated that the figures of the alleged cash payments made in excess of Rs. 20,000/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act which were duly recorded in the regular books of accounts, however the AO made addition u/s 69C of the Act, which is not applicable under such facts. All the entries in the impounded documents were recorded in the regular books of accounts. Further, he states that the said impugned pages referred to in the SCN on the basis of which addition was made u/s 69C of the Act relates to the payments received by the assessee from debtors and that too mostly via cheque and does not relate to payments made by the assessee. In support of his argument, he has referred to page no. 40 of the seized document KE-2 and has tried to explain that the amounts mentioned on these pages refer to the payments received by the assessee against sales made to the party- M/s Maamanasa Hardware. Hence, he has stated that the amounts referred to by the AO (mentioned on page no. 40 of the impounded document KE-2) are not the expenditure incurred by him, hence the provisions of Section 69C are not applicable in his case. 3.2.9 The contention of the appellant has been examined vis-à-vis the submissions made by him. On careful perusal of the submissions made by the appellant, it is noticed that he has provided bank account statement of Kedia Enterprise; proprietor Shri Amit Kedia and the ledger account statement of the debtor in his books of accounts, viz. M/s Maamanasa Hardware. Apart

3.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee is engaged in the business of wholesale hardware and sundry trading in the proprietary concern M/s Kedia Enterprises. Survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on 26.02.2018, on the assessee residential and official premises and , no deposition was taken from the assessee. During survey, certain loose sheets were found which contained entries along with the cash receivable from the debtors and list of inventories. We note that the assessee has submitted before the ld. AO and ld. CIT (A) that the breakup of the cash payments as given by the ld. AO in the assessment order did

4.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, accepted the following payments made in excess of limit of Section 40A(3) of the Act:-

Sl Date Particulars Amount Purpose No. 1. 05.06.2015 Subham Kedia 26,300 4 month salary paid in cash although (salary debited in the Books every moth ₹13,150/- 2. 05.11.2015 Audit fee 25,000 4 Month salary paid in cash although debited in the books every moth ₹12,225/- 3. 19.01.2016 Sales promotion 25,000 Purchase of gold coin 4. 27.02.2016 Sales promotion 42,000 Purchase of gold Coin

4.2. The ld. AO accordingly, added the same to the income of the assessee.

4.3. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) also confirmed the said addition.

4.4. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the payments were made to Subham Kedia on 05.06.2015, which is two-month salary of ₹13,150/- per month. Similarly, the audit fee was

For A.Y. 2015-16 ITA No. 3110/KOL/2025 6. Ground nos. 1 to 7 are not pressed.

For A.Y. 2018-19 ITA No. 3113/KOL/2025 14. Ground nos. 1 to 3 are not pressed.

Order pronounced on 24.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 24.07.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//

Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata