SATYAVEER RAMPURIA,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WARD 1(3),, SILIGURI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee provided sufficient evidence, including VAT/CST returns, sales register, invoices, and bank statements, to prove that the receipts of Rs. 71,91,742/- were accounted business receipts from disclosed sales. The Tribunal concluded that the reassessment proceedings were based on assumptions without evidence of escaped income.
What were the facts?
The assessee declared an income of Rs. 3,62,330/-. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 alleging bogus transactions of Rs. 2,17,16,500/- with M/s Jain Enterprises, leading to additions of Rs. 71,91,742/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were justified and if the additions made by the AO were supported by evidence of escaped income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 148A,Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 271AAC(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member ITA No 2939/KOL/2025 Assessment Year- 2017-18 Satyaveer Rampuria..................................................................................................Appellant C/o. Rampuria Tea Sales, Amrit Apartment, M.G. Road, Khalpara, Siliguri, West Bengal- 734005 [PAN No. ACLPR9768H ] Vs. ITO, Ward 1(3).................................…………..…………………....……….Respondent P9CR, P29, Matigara, Siliguri, West Bengal- 734010 Appearances by: Miraj D. Shah, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Praveen Das Chowdhury, (Sr. D.R.), appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : June 29, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : July 20 ,2026 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.09.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), passed under Section 147 of the Assessment Year 2017-18 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee filed his return of Income for the A.Y. 2017-18 by declaring total income at Rs. 3,62,330/- The case was pushed through the Insight Portal under the High Risk CRIU/VRU for the A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has done bogus transactions amounting to Rs. 2,17 16,500/- with M/s Jain Enterprises, Porp. Mr. Vijay Kumar Jain, PAN AENPJ8119E, through bank account maintained with IndusInd Bank,
ITA No.2939/Kol/2025 A/c. No. 200005170971 during the F.Y. 2016-17. After analysis of account statement of the IndusInd Bank, Current A/c No.200005170971 for the F.Y.2016-17, there had been a total credit of Rs.71,91,742/- On further verification of the reply submitted by the assessee it was inferred that the income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.71,91,742/- was deposited through online mode from M/s Jain Enterprises in assessee's bank Current A/c bearing No.200005170971 Induslnd Bank, against assessee's bogus sales of Tea. Further, with respect to the information available with the department an opportunity of being heard as per provision of section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was provided to the assessee and notice u/s 147 of the I.T Act, 1961 was issued. As Ld. AO was not satisfied by the assessee submissions thus case was selected for scrutiny u/s 147 of the IT Act, 1961 after passing an order dated on 27.03.2024 under section 148A(d). After considering the submissions of the assessee, information received on insight portal, Ld. AO completed the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B the Act on 03.02.2025 by determining total income at Rs.75,54,070/- by making additions of Rs.71.91,742/- to the total returned income of the assessee Rs. 3,62,330/-.Further, penalty u/s 271AAC(1) of the IT Act has been initiated for additionmade us 69A separately. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) wherein appeal of the assessee has been dismissed. 3. The Ld. AR challenges the very impugned order thereby submitting that the Ld. AO as well as the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee’s VAT/CST returns, sell register, invoices, transport documents, ledger of M/s Jain M/s Vijay Kumar Jain Enterprises, PAN statement and other primary evidences which are the documents to prove that the receipts of Rs. 71,91,742/- were duly recorded and it is nothing but accounted business receipts. The Ld. AR further submits 2
ITA No.2939/Kol/2025 that in the present case, Assessing Officer himself accepts that Rs. 71,91,742/- has been received through banking channels against disclosed sales of Rs. Rs. 72,24,051/- to M/s Jain Enterprises during the year. It has further been submitted by the AR that assessee maintains regular books of accounts which have been duly audited by the chartered accountant. The Ld. AR filed following documents:- (i) Audited Report (ii) Ledger of M/s Jain Enterprises. (iii) Ledger of M/s Jain Enterprises of moment of goods containing transporter consignment. (iv) Relevant bank statement. (V) Quarterly return under Central Sales Tax Act, maintain details of transaction with M/s Jain Enterprises. The Ld. AR submits that there was no income has escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee. Contrary to that Ld. DR supports the impugned order.
Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties and on perusal of the record, we find that assessee is engaged in trading of tea and holds the position of a buying member at the Siliguri Tea Auction Committee. Audited report reveals that assessee maintains regular books of accounts having firm name M/s Rampuria Tea Sales and it appears that it has been duly audited by the chartered accountant. Further, we find that transaction conducted with M/s Jain Enterprises, assessee has sold tea amounting to Rs. 72,24,051/- (inclusive of taxes) during the assessment year 2017-18. This fact has been established on perusal of the ledger of M/s Jain Enterprises that has been filed by the assessee. The assessee has also submitted the 3
ITA No.2939/Kol/2025 copy of invoices, evidences of movement of goods containing transporter consignment, etc to establish the genuinity of such sells. It is pertinent to mention here that payments received on account of sales amounting to Rs. 72,24,051/- from the party were made in the due course of the credit line of the business and were conducted through banking channels (relevant bank statement reveals). We further find that the assessee has received Rs. 71,91,742/- through banking channel in the current account maintained in IndusInd Bank, Siliguri and Rs. 32,309/- in cash. It is further important to mention here that financial transaction totalling Rs. 21,716,500/- with M/s Jain Enterprises as alleged in the notice has denied by the assessee and submitted that the amount of Rs. 71,91,742 was received and it was credited to the bank account held with IndusInd in bank account no.200005170971. This fact has established from the bank statement filed by the assessee. I do not find any evidence to find support of the assertion made by the Assessing Officers claiming that an amount of Rs. 21,716,500/- was received. Contrary to that the actual sum receipt which is apparent from the bank statement is Rs. 71,91,742/-. We further find that entire amount have been appropriately recorded in the assessee books and has been subjected to the taxation.
Going over the discussion made above and considering the document filed by the assessee which I have been discussed in my preceding paragraph. We find force in the arguments of the AR is that the entire proceeding based on assumption, no evidence to establish that there was any escape assessment of the income to the hands of the assessee. The order passed by the lower authority are set aside
In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
ITA No.2939/Kol/2025
Kolkata, the 20th July , 2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
[Rajesh Kumar] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member
DC Dated: 20 . 07.2026.
Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR)
//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches
ITA No.2939/Kol/2025
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rishi Stonex vs. The State Of Assam And 5 OthersGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- Gopal Datt vs. Vishal Kumar SharmaUttarakhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Do Nam Enterprise And Anr vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 OrsGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- M Sundaravel vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central GST And Central ExciseMadras · 13 Oct 2026
- A.Merchy Clara vs. The Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise (Appeals)Madras · 13 Oct 2026