INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-43(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RABINDRA NATH BERA, KOLKATA

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “डी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA श्री राजेशकुमार, लेखा सटस्य एवं श्री प्रदीप कुमार चौबे, न्याययक सदस्यके समक्ष [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member &Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 2668/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 ITO, Ward-43(1), Kolkata Vs. Rabindra Nath Bera (PAN: ALJPB 8020 D) ) अपीलार्थी ( Respondent / प्रत्यर्थी Appellant / Date of Hearing / सुनवाई की यिथर्थ 21.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement/ आदेश उद्घोषणा की यिथर्थ 20.07.2026 For the Appellant/ यनर्ााररिी की ओर से Shri Anil Kochar, AR For the Respondent/ राजस्व की ओर से Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR

ORDER / आदेश Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the Order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)] dated 09.09.2025 for the AY 2023-24. 2. Issue raised in Ground Nos.1A and 1B is against the deletion of additions by the Ld. CIT (A) of Rs.1,24,80,000/- received from Ganpati Enterprises and Rs.1,61,00,000/- Loan taken from Ganpati Enterprises (Fertilizer) which were added by the A.O. as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 2.1. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 21.10.2023 declaring total income at Rs.1,88,82,030/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the statutory Notices along with questionnaire were issued and duly served on the assessee. The assessee has

2 I.T.A. No.2668/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Rabindra Nath Bera made compliance by furnishing all the details and evidences. The A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings noted that the assessee has received Rs.1,24,80,000/- from M/s Ganapati Enterprises as withdrawal from the said firm which has been duly debited to the assessee’s Capital A/c. The assessee is a partner in the said firm M/s Ganapati Enterprises. The A.O. also issued Notice u/s 133(6) to M/s Ganapati Enterprises (Fertilizer) but there was no response from the said concern. The A.O. also noted that the assessee has another firm M/s Ganapati Enterprises (PAN: AALFG5062H) which is a dormant concern. The A.O. noted that transaction in the Bank account is stated with Ganapati Enterprise and not Ganapati Enterprise (Fertilizer). The A.O. noted that it is not clear that which PAN connected to which concern. Therefore, the A.O. treated the amount of Rs.1,24,80,000/- received from M/s Ganapati Enterprise (Fertilizer) as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee. The A.O. also noted that during the year, the assessee paid Rs.22,50,000/- to M/s Ganapati Enterprise having PAN: AALFG5062H. It is a dormant concern and also received Rs.1,84,10,000/- from this entity. The said party is a non-filer and is dormant during the financial year. The assessee has not furnished any reply despite being specifically asked to prove genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness and identity of the party. Notice u/s 133(6) of the Act was also issued to the said party to furnish the source of unsecured Loans. But the assessee did not reply and finally the amount was treated as

3 I.T.A. No.2668/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Rabindra Nath Bera unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee. 2.2. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee on this issue by observing that the transactions were duly reflected in the financial Bank receipt and Profit and Loss Account and the assessee has furnished the confirmation of account, Bank account, ITR, Profit and Loss Account, Balance Sheet, Form 16 to prove the identity and creditworthiness and identity of the transactions. The Ld. CIT (A) also recorded a finding a fact that in case M/s Ganapati Enterprise, the only objection of the A.O. was that Ganapati Enterprise (PAN: AALFG5062H) and Ganapati Enterprise (Fertilizer) (PAN: AAWFG7686G) are two different entities but any proof that there not being used interchangeably has not been submitted. The Ld. CIT (A) noted that the assessee has provided ITR of M/s Ganapati Enterprise in which PAN: AAWFG7686G was quoted and not PAN: AALFG5062H as claimed by the A.O. in its Assessment Order. Thus, the Ld. CIT (A) noted that the contentions/observations of the A.O. are not acceptable and untenable in the eyes of Law. The Ld. CIT (A) referred to Books of account filed by the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings, confirmation of account, Bank Statement, ITR, Profit and Loss A/c, Balance Sheet to prove the genuineness of the transactions, identity and creditworthiness of the party. Thus, the contentions of the assessee are found to be correct and accordingly the addition was directed to be deleted by the Ld. CIT (A).

4 I.T.A. No.2668/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Rabindra Nath Bera 2.3. We have heard the rival submission and perused the material on record. We find that the assessee has withdrawn the sum of Rs.1,24,80,000/- from M/s Ganapati Enterprise (Fertilizer) which is a partnership firm as the assessee is a partner in the said concern. We note that the said firm is very much active and managed day-to-day operation such as receipts and payments through Bank and the entire Bank Statement, ITR are furnished before us in the Paper Book. We also find that Loan withdrawal has duly recorded in the Capital account as money withdrawn and therefore, we do not find any anomaly in the finding of the Ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, we uphold the Order of Ld. CIT (A) deleting the addition of Rs.1,24,80,000/-.

2.4. So far as the second addition of Rs.1,61,60,000/- is concerned, we note that the assessee has taken Rs.1,61,60,000/- from M/s Ganapati Enterprise as unsecured Loan and A.O. added the said amount u/s 68 only on the ground that the assessee was a non-filer of ITR for AY 2021- 22, 2022-23 and 2023-24. We note that finding of A.O. is factually incorrect as the assessee is a partner of M/s Ganapati Enterprise as well proprietor of the proprietary concern M/s Siddhi Vinayak Jewellers and therefore, in the name of proprietary concern, n separate return is required to file. We also note that the assessee has duly explained the debit entry of Rs.1,61,60,000/-. Therefore, the addition made by the A.O. u/s 68 is unwarranted and uncalled for. Thus, we upheld the Order of Ld. CIT (A) by dismissing the

5 I.T.A. No.2668/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Rabindra Nath Bera ground raised by the Revenue. Ground No.1A and 1B are dismissed.

3.1. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a partner in the firm known as New Binayak Jewellers. There were total transactions of Rs.86,90,247/- which comprised of two amounts namely Rs.32,20,500/- and Rs.54,69,747/-. There has been another account in New Binayak Jewellers amounting to Rs.2,05,02,052/-, there were first credits of Rs.2,51,75,300/-. Thus, the amount aggregated to Rs.4,56,77,352/-. During the year, the payment was amounted to Rs.2,03,25,000/- and the net closing balance of Rs.2,53,52,352/-. The A.O. noted that during the year the assessee received Rs.1,03,19,597/- from New Binayak Jewellers which is a firm and the assessee is a partner in the said firm. The assessee furnished ITR and Ledger pertaining to the said firm. The A.O. also issued Notice u/s 133(6) to the said firm which was complied with by the said firm by submitting Balance Sheet in which according to the A.O. the Loan and advanced Rs.48,49,850/- to the assessee during the year while according to the A.O. the balance as per assessee

6 I.T.A. No.2668/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Rabindra Nath Bera (Siddhi Vinayak Jewellers) was Rs.1,03,19,597/- as received from New Binayak Jewellers and as well as this difference of Rs.54,69,747/-. The A.O. treated the same as unexplained cash credit and added u/s 68 of the Act. Similarly, the A.O. noted from the audited report of New Binayak Jewellers that the assessee has introduced a Capital account of Rs.32,20,500/- during the year which has not been shown in the financials of the assessee. The A.O. noted that overall transaction reported by the assessee showed that the assessee received fund from New Binayak Jewellers. Therefore, the amount received of Rs.32,20,500/- remained unexplained cash credit and accordingly added u/s 68 of the Act.

3.2. The Ld. CIT (A) in the appellate proceedings allowed the appeal by observing that the assessee submitted the confirmation of account, Bank statement, Balance Sheet to prove the genuineness of the transactions and identity and creditworthiness of the parties and found the same to be correct.

3.3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We find that during the year following transactions were recorded in the Books of account in the name of New Binayak Jewellers Loan account which is as under: -

New Binayak Jewellers Loan Account Opening Rs.2,05,02,052/- Amount Received Rs.2,51,75,300/- Total Credit Balance Rs.4,56,77,352/-

7 I.T.A. No.2668/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Rabindra Nath Bera

Less: Amount Paid (-) Rs.2,03,25,000/- Closing Balance Rs.2,53,52,352/- Capital with New Binayak Jewellers Opening Rs.1,12,46,200/- Amount Paid Rs. 32,22,500/- Share in Profit Rs. 13,29,214/- Less: Amount Received Rs – 6,50,000/- Less: Income Tax Paid Rs. 1,13,160/- Closing Balance Rs.1,50,32,755/- Net Amount Shown in Return Rs.1,03,19,596/-

3.4. We note from the above, the transactions made by the assessee with New Binayak Jewellers are incomplete agreement with Books of account of the assessee and the Ld. CIT (A) rightly deleted the addition, therefore, we uphold the Order of Ld. CIT (A) by dismissing the Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue. Ground No.2 is dismissed.

4.1. Facts in brief are that the assessee has received Rs.3,70,70,000/- during the year from Ganapati Cutting Centre, proprietary concern of Smt. Anuva Bera, the wife of

8 I.T.A. No.2668/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Rabindra Nath Bera the assessee. The A.O. noted that the said entity has Turnover of Rs.5.05 Crores with total purchase of Rs.4.75 Crores. This entity has also repaid an unsecured Loan of Rs.77,00,000/- and made investment of Rs.14,22,055/- during the year. Despite its limited profit margin, the entity has transferred substantial funds to the assessee and therefore the fund which had not been explained were treated u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit and added to the income of the assessee.

4.2. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT (A) allowed the appeal on this issue by noting that as per the confirmation of account, Bank statement, Profit and Loss account, the genuineness of the transaction and identity and creditworthiness of the party are proved. The Ld. CIT (A) noted that said concern has huge Turnover of Rs.5,05,16,405/- during the AY 2023-24 and Rs.3,06,62,010/- during AY 2022-23 and accordingly allowed the appeal of the assessee on this issue. 4.3. We have heard the rival submission and perused the material on record. We find that during the year, the assessee has shown outstanding balance being payable to Ganapati Cutting Centre of Rs.3,70,70,000/-. We also note that after examination of documents furnished by the assessee in the form of Ledger account, Statement of account, Audited account, ITR acknowledgement of Smt. Anuva Bera noted that the transactions were duly accounted for by the said concern. We note that the A.O.’s contentions

9 I.T.A. No.2668/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Rabindra Nath Bera was that there was very less income during the year and how the assessee can advance the heavy sum to the assessee. However, the said A.O. has ignored the factual in the Books of account of the assessee. We also note that Books of accounts were audited. Therefore, we do not find anomaly or infirmity in the Order of Ld. CIT (A) who has taken a very reasoned and balanced view on the matter. Consequently, we upheld the Order of Ld. CIT (A) by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. Ground No.3 is dismissed.

5.1. The A.O. while dealing with the addition of Rs.50,00,000/- in the name of Shibu Sidhacharjya, the loan creditor has made the following observation:

“During the year under consideration, assessee has received Rs.50,00,000/- as unsecured loan from Shibu Sidhacharjya. In order to substantiate the identity and creditworthiness of Shibu Sidhacharjya and genuineness of loans, assessee has been asked multiple times to provide ITRs, bank statements and financials of the party but assessee has time and again failed to provide the details. Notice u/s. 133(6) were also sent to third party wherein it was explicitly asked to furnish the source of unsecured loans extended to assessee and in case loans were availed by it for this purpose, then to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the party from which loans were availed by it. But no response received till date. The notice was served through DVU but no response received. From the perusal of returns filed by Shibu Sidhacharjya it is observed that the following income has been disclosed by him in the previous years: Sr. No. A.Y. Total income (in INR) 1. 2021-22 7,62,080/- 2. 2022-23 8,51,640/-

10 I.T.A. No.2668/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Rabindra Nath Bera

Therefore, an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- is proposed to be added as unexplained cash credit as per provisions of Section 68 of the Act. Since the unsecured loan itself is being proposed to be non-genuine, the interest paid or claimed as expense on such loans shall also be treated as non-genuine. Consequently, an amount of Rs.1,78,000/- claimed as interest expense is proposed to be disallowed as per provisions of Section 37(1) of the Act.” 5.2. As against the observations of the A.O., the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has made the following observations for acceptance of the aforesaid amount of loan and interest thereon of Rs.50,00,000/- and Rs.1,78,000/- respectively: -

“The Ld. AO has stated that, the appellant was unable to prove the identity & creditworthiness of the transactions during the course of assessment proceedings. However, it is noted that, these transactions were reflected in its financials, Balance Sheet, P&L account etc. Further, during the course of appellate proceedings the appellant has provided confirmation of accounts, statement of accounts, Form No.16A to prove the genuineness, identity & creditworthiness of these transactions. Thus, the contentions of the appellant are found to be correct and are hereby accepted.” 5.3. The Ld. A/R before us explained that the loan creditor had retired from his services rendered with Calcutta Electric Supply Ltd. and had received amount of Rs.40,41,160/- from his PF account on 13.02.2023 by cheque which was duly credited in the bank account of loan creditor. Further the loan creditor has advanced Rs.6,00,000/- on 24.03.2023 from his bank account. We find that this issue about the source of fresh credit of Rs,50,00,000/- from the creditor has not been properly either dealt with by A.O. or by the Ld. CIT(A). We therefore think it proper to set aside the matter regarding loan of Rs.50,00,000/- from Shibu Sidhacharjya to A.O. for necessary verification of evidences and examination of the evidences and take correct decision. Regarding disallowance

11 I.T.A. No.2668/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Rabindra Nath Bera of interest on this loan account will also be taken into consideration. Accordingly, issue raised in Ground no. 4 and 5 are sent back to A.O. for fresh decision as per Law taking into consideration relevant evidences that may be produced by the assessee. Ground Nos.4 and 5 are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

6.1. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the assessee has raised unsecured Loan from the said party in the earlier assessment year. We note that opening balance as on 01.04.2022 was Rs.1,15,62,180/-. The assessee has also repaid an amount of Rs.39,26,320/-. During the year, we note that A.O. disallowed the Interest paid to the said party being the party non-responsive to Notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. The Ld. CIT (A) after taking into account ITR, audited account, Balance Sheet, confirmation of said party deleted the addition. In our opinion, the Order of Ld. CIT (A) is very reasoned and speaking one and does not call for any interference at our end. Consequently, we uphold the Order of Ld. CIT (A) by dismissing the Ground No.6 raised by the Revenue.

12 I.T.A. No.2668/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Rabindra Nath Bera 7.1. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we note that A.O. has added the entire Sundry Debtors amounting to Rs.10,23,11,788/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Despite the assessee furnished the details, name and address of each of the Sundry Debtors, we note that the assessee is regularly dealt with all the parties as the Sales were made to all the parties, payments were also received in the regular course. We note that the A.O. has accepted the Sale of the assessee which are credited and duly shown in the audited account, Profit and Loss account. We also note that the A.O. has accordingly erred in adding the amount receivable u/s 68 which is totally non-application of mind of the A.O. We note that during the year the Turnover of the assessee was Rs.142 Crore as against the last year Turnover of Rs.66,87,58,984/-. Besides the Books of account were not rejected and on the other hand Sale are subject to GST and the assessee has regular filer of ITR and paid full Tax. The Ld. CIT (A) after appreciating all the facts recorded a finding that Section 68 is not application to the trade data and therefore addition cannot be made as unexplained cash credit. We have perused the facts and records and also the Appellate Order and found that the Order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is reasoned and as per provision of the Act we upheld the Order of Ld. CIT (A) on this issue by dismissing the ground raised by the Revenue. Ground No.7 is dismissed.

13 I.T.A. No.2668/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Rabindra Nath Bera total expenditure of Rs.94,18,379/- under various heads as under: -

Sl. No. Expenses Amount (Rs.) Issues 1. Employee Benefit 12,90,045/- Documentary proofs, party details, Expenses Form 16, payment details not provided. 2. Financial Cost 33,29,113/- The financial cost is paid for both (Secured Loans) secured and unsecured loans. The interest paid on unsecured loans has been covered separately in paras above. Assessee was requested to provide documentary proofs such as interest certificate and loan documents for interest paid to Banks on secured loans therefore claimed finance cost was not verified. 3. Labour Charges 41,64,370/- No party-wise data has been provided, no confirmations, no payment schedules, no pay slips/payment Bills have been provided. 133(6) was issued to 3 parties but no response received from these parties till date. 4. Travelling & 3,84,851/- Bills/Invoices, purpose of travel is Conveyance for business only is not proved. 5. Freight & Insurance 2,50,000/- Bills/Invoices or any other proof A/c not submitted. BVC Kolkata

8.1. The A.O. while disallowing the 40% of the total expenditure has noted in the Order of Assessment as under: -

The assessee’s claim for above mentioned expenses to the tune of Rs.94,18,379/- were partially disallowed as assessee had only submitted Ledgers. Merely asserting that the expenses were incurred in cash below the allowable limits does not constitute sufficient proof that the expenditure was actually made. However, considering that the assessee is engaged in business and some of these expenses are essential, a reasonable percentage of the claim had to be disallowed due to lack of verifiable documentary evidence. The disallowance was made to the extent the expenditures of 40% i.e., Rs.37,67,351/- as the assessee has failed to establish that the entire amount was wholly and exclusively incurred for business purposes as required u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

14 I.T.A. No.2668/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Rabindra Nath Bera

8.2. The assessee had submitted before the A.O. as under: -

In response to assessee submitted Invoice pertaining to Freight Expense only. The same is being allowed. Rest of the response was not found to be satisfactory. (a) Assessee submitted that Bank Book of employees have been submitted but same has not been received. Only names have been submitted. The PAN of parties have not been provided. Assessee failed to provide Salary Slips or Confirmations from parties. (b) With regard to finance cost, assessee failed to provide Interest Certificates. To add to it even Bank statements of HDFC accounts have not been submitted. The onus was on assessee to provide complete and self-explanatory response as well as documents. (c) Labour charges related proofs other than Ledger has not been submitted. To add to it none of the parties to whom Labour charges have been paid has also not been submitted. (d) No proofs for Travelling and Conveyance expense has been submitted. However, considering that the assessee is engaged in business and some of these expenses are essential, a reasonable percentage of the claim had to be disallowed due to lack of verifiable documentary evidence. The disallowance is hereby made to the extent the expenditures of 40%, of Rs.91,68,379/- i.e., Rs.36,67,351/- as the assessee has failed to establish that the entire amount was wholly and exclusively incurred for business purposes as required u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

8.3. The CIT (A) during the course of appellate proceeding has deleted the disallowance of such expenditure made u/s 37 of the Act since he was of the opinion that the same is untenable.

8.4. We have gone through the observations of the A.O. in the Order of Assessment and find that in respect of Employee Benefit Expenses, Labour Charges, Travelling & Conveyance and Freight & Insurance A/c though the appellant has not produced Bills/Invoices or any other proof but has submitted respective Ledger A/cs of the same. The expenditures keeping in view the business activities of the appellant where

15 I.T.A. No.2668/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Rabindra Nath Bera Turnover is Rs.142 Crores appears to be reasonable. Hence, we are inclined to dismiss the ground relating to adhoc expenses to the extent of Rs.36,67,351/- by upholding the appellate order on this issue. Ground no. 8 is dismissed.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 20th July, 2026

Sd/- Sd/-

(Pradip Kumar Choubey /प्रदीप कुमार चौबे) (Rajesh Kumar/राजेश कुमार) Judicial Member/न्याययक सदस्य Accountant Member/लेखा सदस्य Dated: 20th July, 2026 SM, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- ITO, Ward-43(1), Kolkata 2. Respondent – Rabindra Nath Bera, 1/B, Seven Tanks Lane, South Sinthee, Kolkata-700030. 3. Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Ld. Pr. CIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail)