SUKHARANJAN HALDER,NADIA vs. ITO, WARD 41(3),, NADIA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 580/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 July 2026AY 2018-20195 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the bank transaction slips confirmed the remittances, and the discrepancy was due to a mistake in Form 15CC. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny regarding foreign outward remittances. Despite filing a return under the presumptive income scheme, the assessee failed to comply with notices. The Assessing Officer added the entire foreign remittance amount as unexplained income under Section 69A.

What were the issues?

Whether foreign remittances confirmed by bank transaction slips can be added as unexplained income under Section 69A when there is a discrepancy in Form 15CC. Whether a penalty under Section 271AAC(1) can sustain if the primary addition is deleted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 271AAC(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMARAND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Roy Chowdhury, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Praveen Das Chowdhury, Sr. DR
Hearing: 29.06.2026Pronounced: 10.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERAND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.579 & 580/KOL/2026 (Assessment Year:2018-19) Sukharanjan Halder, ITO, Vill – Anandanagar, PO – Vs. Ward – 41(3), Anandanagar, Saguna, Nadia – Nadia 741245, West Bengal [PAN:ANHPH7292M] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Somnath Roy Chowdhury, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Praveen Das Chowdhury, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 29.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 10.07.2026

O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These two appeals preferred by the assessee are against the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “ld. CIT(A)”], dated 01.09.2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19.

2.

At the outset, we note that both appeals of the assessee are barred by limitation by 78 days. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. The ld. Sr. DR did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record, we find that

ITA Nos.579&580/Kol/2026/AY 2018-19 Sukharanjan Halder vs. ITO delays in filing both appeal is for bonafide and genuine reasons and , hence, we condone the delay and adjudicate both appeals as under.

3.

The only issue raised by the assessee in the various grounds of appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.4,39,61,880/- by ld. CIT(A) as made by the Assessing Officer (In short, ‘the AO’) u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (In short, ‘the Act’).

4.

The facts of the case in brief are that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 for verification of Foreign Outward Remittance. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued and served upon the assessee. There was no compliance to the said notices. The assessee filed reply on 25.02.2021. The AO noted that assessee has filed his return of income under presumptive income u/s 44AD of the Act. Therefore, the AO noted that upon perusal of Form 15CC submitted by the assessee in respect of Axis Bank, it was observed that the assessee has made outward foreign remittances of Rs.4,39,61,880/- during the A.Y. 2018-19 (Page No. 2 of assessment order), which are extracted below:

Date of Remittance Name of Remitter Amount (Rs.) 02-06-2017 Sukharanjan Halder 4,37,10,450 12-03-2018 Sukharanjan Halder 2,51,430 TOTAL 4,39,61,880 5. Accordingly, the AO issued show cause notice, which was replied by the assessee by filing scanned copy of passbook. The AO noted that the account holder’s PAN could not be scanned in the copies furnished. The assessee also furnished sale deed of immovable property, which was sold at Rs.10,50,000/- during the F.Y. 2017-18. The AO observed that as per

ITA Nos.579&580/Kol/2026/AY 2018-19 Sukharanjan Halder vs. ITO information in Form 15CC as noted above the assessee has unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and added the same to the income in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 19.04.2021.

6.

In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same .

7.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record including the bank statement filed by the assessee and the outward remitted transaction slips issued by the bank. We have examined the bank statement vis-à-vis outward remittances and observed that the assessee has made foreign remittances on two dates as follows: (i) Rs.4,38,069.86 (Axis Bank) on 02.06.2017and (ii) Rs.2,53,135.85 (Axis Bank) on 12.03.2018. We have compared the said remittances with the outward remittance’s transaction slip issued by bank, which are extracted below:

ITA Nos.579&580/Kol/2026/AY 2018-19 Sukharanjan Halder vs. ITO

8.

We, therefore, find that there is no mismatch between the bank account and the transactions slips issued by the bank though there is a mistake on the part of the bank in Form 15CC. Therefore, no addition is required to be made as the bank has confirmed the remittances by the assessee to be correct in the transactions slips extracted above. to the file

ITA Nos.579&580/Kol/2026/AY 2018-19 Sukharanjan Halder vs. ITO of the jurisdictional AO to verify and decide issue accordingly. Consequently, we set-aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.

ITA No.580/KOL/2026 (A.Y.2018-19): 9. At the outset, the ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the appeal of the assessee is against the order of ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act. Since, we allowed the quantum appeal of the assessee ITA No.579/Kol/2025 in above, therefore, this penalty order has no legs to stand and is accordingly ordered to be deleted. The appeal is allowed.

10.

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed.

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 10/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Pradip Kumar Choubey) (Rajesh Kumar) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kolkata, Dated: 10/07/2026 SAMANTA आदेश �ȧ ĤǓ�ͧ �ͪ �\ Ē ȯͪ��/Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. \ �Ȣ�ȡ�ȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×��ȸ/ The Respondent 3. Ȳ�Ȳͬ��आयकर] �ǕÈ�/ Concerned CIT 4. आयकर] �ǕÈ�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. ��ȡ�Ȣ�ĤǓ�Ǔ�ͬ �, आयकर\ �Ȣ�ȣ�\ͬ ����,/ DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. �ȡ�[ फाईल/ Guard file

BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Asstt.Registrar, ITAT, Kolkata

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →