DEBANGSU NRIPENDRANATH BOSE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD -2(3)(7), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1341/SRT/2024Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 July 2026AY 2010-116 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the appellate order. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for the limited purpose of verifying if the sustained addition was accounted for in the assessee's books.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return of income for AY 2010-11 declared a total income significantly lower than substantial credit entries in their bank account. The Assessing Officer made an addition for unexplained credits, which was partly confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the addition for unexplained credits was correctly sustained and if the assessee should be given a further opportunity to verify the accounting of these credits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 148,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: Shri T.R. Sentil Kumar & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT (PHYSICAL HEARING) Before: Shri T.R. Sentil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member

ITA No: 1341/SRT/2024 Assessment Year: 2010-11

Debangsu Nripendranath Income Tax Officer Bose Ward-2(3)(7), E-306, Kunalpuram, Vs Surat Opp Atlas Copco Pune-411012 PAN: ABDPB9581F (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Shri P M Jagasheth, CA Revenue Represented: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 07-05-2026 Date of pronouncement : 06-07-2026 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the appellate order dated 30.03.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the ex-parte re-assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2010-11.

I.T. A No. 1341//SRT/2024 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 2 Debangsu Nripendranath Bose vs. ITO

2.

The Registry has noted that there is a delay of 572 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee by way of a notarized affidavit explained that the assessee is a 63 years old and he was unaware about online income tax proceedings. Even in the appeal before Ld. CIT(A), in Form No. 35, the assessee specifically requested not to send the notices by email, however, the email submitted for sending the notices was that of the assessee’s business email id whereas the business activity had been completely closed and the email id namely “devdiamonds.123@gmail.com” is inoperative since several years. Whereas, the appellate order was sent across by Ld. CIT(A). It is later the assessee came to know the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) thereby the delay of 574 days in filing the appeal. The delay is neither deliberate nor intentional but occurred due to bona fide and non-avoidable circumstances and pleaded to condone the delay. We have verified Form No. 35 and found that the statement made by the assessee is correct, thereby, we hereby condone the delay of 574 days in filing the above appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee is an individual who has filed his return of income on 20.09.2010 declaring total income of Rs.3,90,970/- and the assessee is a proprietary concern of M/s Dev Diamonds. Information received from the Department, the assessee had substantial credit entries totaling to Rs.3,66,10,93,195/- in his Bank account relating to the AY 2010-11. However, on perusal of the return of income, the assessee shown Rs.3,90,970/- as returned income as against the total turnover of Rs.2,99,66,77,580/-. Thus, there is a difference of credit entry of Rs.66,44,15,615/- which remained unexplained. Thereby, the assessment was reopened and show cause notices were issued. The assessee failed to reply to the

I.T. A No. 1341//SRT/2024 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 3 Debangsu Nripendranath Bose vs. ITO

show cause notice, which has resulted in making an addition of Rs.66,44,15,615/- as unexplained credit and demanded tax thereon. 4. Aggrieved against the ex-parte assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), wherein produced additional documents. Ld. CIT(A) called for remand report from the AO and rejoinder from the assessee, thereby confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs.46,57,14,352/-, which was not properly explained by the assessee. Thus, Ld. CIT(A) granted a relief of Rs.19,87,01,263/- and partly allowed the appeal by observing as follows:- “…………(xxvii) In the light of the above facts, it is observed that during the AY 2010-11, the total sales of the appellant's proprietary concern is shown in Original Return of Income at Rs. 299,66,77,580/-. As per the Tax auditor's report for the year under consideration, total turnover is Rs. 318,29,59,814/- which has been thereafter correctly shown in the Revised return of Income. The revised return of income is found to be a valid return of income. Further, as per the information received from ADIT(Inv.)-III, Surat and its subsequent verification, it was found that an amount of Rs. 366,10,93,195/- has been deposited into the appellant's Current Account. Out of this amount of Rs. 366,10,93,195/-, it is found that Rs. 318,29,59,814/- is covered by the Total turnover of M/s Dev Diamond, which as mentioned above was wrongly shown in Original return at Rs. 299,66,77,580/- but then subsequently revised to the correct figure in the revised return of income based on the Tax Audit Report for the year under consideration. Further, as per Audit Report, the appellant has also received a total amount of Rs. 1,24,19,027/- as interest income during the year under consideration. The total of these incomes comes at Rs. 3,19,53,78,843/-. Therefore, it is clear that credit of only a total amount of Rs. 46,57,14,352/- (366,10,93,195 - 3,19,53,78,843) has not been properly explained by the Appellant.

(xxviii) In view of the above discussion and case laws relied upon me, it is observed that the appellant has failed to discharge its onus of proving the source of credits and therefore, I am of the view that the appellant has not been able to discharge the initial burden cast upon him. Therefore, after perusal of the case, I find that the amount of Rs. 46,57,14,352/- are the unexplained credits of the appellant for the year under consideration as against Rs. 66,44,15,615/- considered by the AO and therefore, the amount of Rs. 46,57,14,352/- is accordingly, confirmed and the balance amount of Rs.

I.T. A No. 1341//SRT/2024 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 4 Debangsu Nripendranath Bose vs. ITO

19,87,01,263/- (Rs. 66,44,15,615/-minus Rs. 46,57,14,352/-), is directed to be deleted. The ground of appeal No. 2 is therefore, partly allowed.”

5.

Aggrieved against the appellate order, assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal:-

1.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.46,57,14,352/-in unexplained credits. 2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in re-opening the assessment u/s 147 of the act and issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4 It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper. 5 Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.

6.

Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us, two paper books which contains the return of income filed for the AY 2009- 10 as well as for the present AY 2010-11 and an Axis Bank passbook for the AY 2010-11 as well as ledger accounts of the various parties. Ld. Counsel further pleaded that the appellate order be restored back to the file of Ld. JAO for limited purpose of verifying whether Rs.46,57,14,352/- as sustained by Ld. CIT(A) is accounted for in the books of accounts of the assessee or not. 7. Ld. CIT DR appearing for the Revenue strongly objected to the above request of the assessee, since it was an ex-parte before the AO and during the appellate proceedings, a remand report was called by

I.T. A No. 1341//SRT/2024 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 5 Debangsu Nripendranath Bose vs. ITO

the Ld. CIT(A) and rejoinder also filed by the assessee. Therefore, no more opportunity be given to the assessee. 8. We have considered the rival submission and perused the materials available on record. In order to meet the ends of justice, we deem it fit to impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- payable by the assessee to the Income Tax Department within two weeks of receipt of copy of this order and production of the same, the appellate order passed by the Appellate Authority is hereby set aside with a direction to the JAO to the limited purpose of verifying that Rs.46,57,14,352/- is being accounted for by the assessee in its books of accounts or not and the same in the accordance of provisions of law. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 06-07-2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 06/07/2026 Mittali आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

I.T. A No. 1341//SRT/2024 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 6 Debangsu Nripendranath Bose vs. ITO

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →