KRISHNA KUMAR MINTRI,DARJEELING vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 349/GTY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati30 April 2026AY 2019-205 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that while the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer was adequate, the assessee was not provided with crucial evidence for rebuttal. Therefore, the matter on merits was restored to the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

During a search operation on a third party, a document indicated the assessee received Rs. 50,00,000 cash. The Assessing Officer made an addition based on this, but the assessee was not provided with the statement of the third party or an opportunity for cross-examination.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made on the basis of evidence found during a third-party search is valid without providing the evidence to the assessee for rebuttal and cross-examination.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GAUHATI BENCH

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri S. P. Bhati, FCA
For Respondent: Shri Santosh Kr. Karnani, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Hearing: 30.04.2025Pronounced: 30.04.2025

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GAUHATI BENCH VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.349/Gau/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20

Krishna Kumar Mintri ACIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati Mintri Complex, Sevoke Road, Vs Siliguri H.O, Siliguri, Darjeeling, Darjeeling, W.B- 734001. (PAN: AEQPM0759L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri S. P. Bhati, FCA Revenue by : Shri Santosh Kr. Karnani, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 30.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025

ORDER Per George Mathan, JM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), Central NER, Guwahati [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no. CIT(A), Central NER, Guwahati/10075/2018-19 dated 19.09.2025.

2.

Shri S. P. Bhati, FCA, represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Santhosh Kr. Karnani, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

ITA No.349/Gau/2025 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is an individual. There was search and seizure operation on the Babul Nath Group on 29.01.2021. In the course of search, one document was found which showed that the assessee had received Rs.50,00,000/- cash from one Shri Ashit Ghosh. The Assessing Officer recorded satisfaction and issued notice to the assessee. The assessee did not provide details to the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that the satisfaction as recorded is not shown to be of Assessing Officer of the person searched. It was also submitted that the Assessing Officer of the assessee has not recorded satisfaction. It was the submission that both the Assessing Officer of the assessee and Assessing Officer of the person searched is to record satisfaction. It was the submission that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears reported in (2014) 362 ITR 673 (SC) as also the CBDT Circular no.24/2015 dated 31.12.2015 prescribes for the same. It was the submission that as no satisfaction has been recorded by both the Assessing Officers, the assessment is liable to be quashed.

4.

In reply, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Super Malls (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2020) 423 ITR 281 (SC) applies. It was the submission that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Super Malls (P.) Ltd. referred to supra, if the Assessing Officer of both the searched person and the

ITA No.349/Gau/2025 assessee in whose case assessment has been framed are the same, then recording of one satisfaction by the Assessing Officer of the person searched is adequate. It was the submission that on merits, the assessee has not provided the details of the transaction with Shri Ashit Ghosh. It was the submission that the assessment is liable to be upheld.

5.

In reply, it was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee responded to the show-cause notice by submitting the details of the transaction which has been treated as undisclosed income of the assessee. The assessee submitted that even the assessee has not been provided the opportunity to cross-examine. This was put to the ld. Sr. DR, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that the statement from Shri Ashit Ghosh has been recorded u/s 132(4). The ld. AR submitted that primary onus was on the assessee to explain the transaction.

6.

We have heard the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case clearly shows that the statement given by Shri Ashit Ghosh in the course of search has not been provided to the assessee. The said Shri Ashit Ghosh who was alleged to have paid Rs.50,00,000/- in cash has not been provided to the assessee for cross-examination. The document which has been relied upon was not the document found in the hands of the assessee, it was the document found in the course of search on a third party. When evidence is found in the course of search on a third party is being used against the assessee, obviously the

ITA No.349/Gau/2025 evidence available with the revenue has to be provided to the assessee to rebut, which has not been done in the impugned case. This being so, it is directed as follows.

6.1. As it is noticed that the satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer of person searched and the Assessing Officer of the impugned assessee are the same, the satisfaction having been recorded by the Assessing Officer of person searched is in line with the principles laid down in Super Malls (P.) Ltd. referred to supra. Consequently, the submission of the ld. AR in regard to recording of satisfaction stands dismissed.

6.2. Coming to issues on merits, it is noticed that the assessee has not been provided with all the evidences in relation to the addition of Rs.50,00,000/- in the case of the assessee. This being so, the issues on merits are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to the Assessing Officer to provide copy of statement recorded from Shri Ashit Ghosh if any and evidences which are being proposed to have been used against the assessee for the rebuttal of the assessee before the re- assessment proceedings. Under the circumstances, the issues on merits are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of rebuttal and the assessee is directed to provide all the evidences in set aside proceedings.

ITA No.349/Gau/2025

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30/04/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Laxmi Prasad Sahu] [George Mathan] लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/Judicial Member Dated: 30/04/2026 RS 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

More judgments on Section 132(4)

All 3,819 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132(4) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →