SRI TARAK DUTTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 25(1),, KOLKATA

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member ITA No.1655/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sri Tarak Dutta…………....………...………..............................……….……Appellant 42/C, N S C Bose Road, Regent Colony, Kol-40. [PAN: AEWPD1534L] vs. ITO, Ward-25(1), Kolkata…..………...……………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Soumitra Choudury, Adv., appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : March 19, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : April 28,2026 ORDER Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 05.12.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for the A.Y 2020-21. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee with a delay of 512 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay. We find that the reasons cited in the said affidavit are valid and reasonable. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. Ground Nos.1 to 3 are general in nature and the same do not require any adjudication.

ITA No.1655/Kol/2025 4. Ground Nos.4 to 6 are against the confirmation of addition of Rs.1,55,44,902/- by the ld. CIT(A) as made by the Assessing Officer on account difference between the registering value and set forth value of the four properties treating the same as deemed income u/s 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. 5. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income declaring income of Rs.7,88,520/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for the reasons of purchase value of the properties being less than the value as per stamp authority u/s 56(2). Notices u/s 142(1) along with questionnaire were issued and duly served upon the assessee. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings noted that the assessee has purchased four immovable properties details of which are available at pages 3 and 4 of the assessment order along with the details of buyers, actual sale consideration, stamp duty valuation etc. The Assessing Officer noted from the said table that the assessee has purchased with the properties for a total consideration of Rs.84,00,002/- and the stamp valuation come to Rs.2,61,38,304/- and thus the difference is Rs.17738302/- which is more than 5% of the actual sale consideration, was added to the income by the Assessing Officer u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. 6. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer on this issue. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee failed to make any compliance. 7. After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the materials on records, we find that in case of first property which was purchased by the assessee for Rs.10,00,000/-, the assessee entered into a joint venture agreement with Biswajit Bhattacharya on 12.03.2019 which is available at pages 100 to 166 of the paper-book. Therefore, this is not a

ITA No.1655/Kol/2025 case of purchase of property by the assessee as held by the AO and hence the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b) are not applicable. Similarly, in respect of 2nd property which was purchased by the assessee for Rs.14,00,000/-, the assessee entered into another joint venture agreement on 14.03.2018 which is available at pages 167 to 206 of the paper-book. We note that the substantial payments were made in the year 2009-10 and therefore the stamp valuation of that year in which the sale deed is executed cannot be taken for the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. In respect of 3rd property which was purchased by the assessee at Rs.60,00,000/-, the assessee again entered into a joint venture agreement with Kunal Chakrabarti on 01.07.2019 for a consideration of Rs.48,00,000/- and paid Rs.30,50,000/- but the same was noted in the registering set forth value at Rs.60,00,000/-. Therefore, this is also not the case of actual purchase of property by the assessee and provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b) are not applicable. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the conclusion drawn by the ld. CIT(A) on this issue b y upholding the assessment order on this issue. Consequently, we delete the addition of Rs.1,55,44,902/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act by setting aside the appellate order on this issue. The ground no 4 to 6 are allowed. 8. The second issue raised by the assessee in ground no.7 is not pressed, therefore, the same does not require any adjudication. 9. The issue in Ground Nos.8 & 9 is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.77,00,002/- by the ld. CIT(A) as source of investment of property treating the same as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act which is purely on presumption basis without considering the evidences produced by the assessee.

ITA No.1655/Kol/2025 10. The facts in brief are that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called for source of investments of the properties but the assessee failed to provide explanation about the source of investment of property of Rs.77,00,002/- and the same was treated as unexplained u/s 69 of the Act. 11. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-compliance. 12. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the assessee entered into agreements with different parties and the complete details are available from pages 5 to 241 of the paper-book. We note that the payments were made through cheques during the year. The assessee entered into agreement for sale with Ashok Kumar Saha and the payment of Rs.10,00,000/- was made through two cheques of Rs.5,00,000/- each dated 25.05.2009 which is evident at page 94 of the paper-book. The assessee entered into joint venture agreement with Biswajit Bhattacharya & others and the payments of Rs.20,00,000/- were made through four cheques 12.03.2019 of Rs. 5,00,000/- dated 12.3.2019. The assessee entered another joint venture agreement with Jharna Banerjee and the payments were done by cheque no.000001 dated 14.3.2018 drawm on HDFC bank of Rs.5,00,000/-. The assessee entered into joint venture agreement with Kunal Chakrabarti and the payments were done by cheques which comprised of cheque no.000022 dated 13.05.2019 of Rs.2,00,000/-, 000025 dated 27.05.2019 of Rs.28,00,000/- and 000032 dated 06.06.2019 of Rs.50,000/-, which are available at page no.229 of paper-book. All these payments wer made through account payee cheques which are evidenced by the entries in the pass book produced by the assessee and also available in the paper book Considering the above, we are inclined to hold that the addition

ITA No.1655/Kol/2025 made by the Assessing Officer and as sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is wrong and the same is hereby deleted. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Kolkata, the 28th April, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Pradip Kumar Choubey] [Rajesh Kumar] JudicialMember Accountant Member

Dated: 28.04.2026. 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