NANDAN KUMAR DAS,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(1), HALDIA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.914/KOL/2026 (Assessment Year:2016-17) Nandan Kumar Das, ITO, C/o Mahadev Ghosh, Advocate Vs. Ward – 27(1), BF – 199, Salt Lake City, Sector-1, Haldia Kolkata – 700064, West Bengal [PAN: AIXPD2501N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Mahadev Ghosh, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Sandip Sarkar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 25.06.2026

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

This appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the “ld. CIT(A)”], dated 28.02.2026 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17.

“For that the Income Tax Officer, Ward – 27(1), Haldia, Purba Medinipur issued the notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 30.03.2021

without taking/obtained the prior approval u/s 151(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before issuing the notice from the competent authority as enumerated in the stature. Hence, the notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(1), Haldia, Purba Medinipur was illegal, bad-in- law, void-ab-initio and liable to be quashed.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file any return of income during the year. The Assessing Officer (In short, ‘the AO’) on the basis of information available with the Department, observed that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.1,34,94,000/- into his savings bank account during the F.Y. 2015-16, relevant to A.Y. 2016-17. The AO noted that assessee received interest income of Rs.33,110/- u/s 194A of the Act. Subsequently, the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act was initiated by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2021. Again, no return of income was filed in compliance to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued. The assessee replied the said questionnaire vide letters dated 30.11.2021 and 15.11.2021 respectively. It was submitted by the assessee that the cash deposited in his saving bank account was made by mistake instead of depositing in the current bank account of his firm, i.e., M/s Nandan Hardware. The assessee submitted bank account statement for the A/c No.5415019003578 maintained with Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank. The assessee also submitted profit and loss account, balance sheet and computation of income. The Ao noted that it was not one-time cash deposit rather cash was deposited in his saving bank accounts on weekly or biweekly basis throughout the year. Secondly, the assessee has not provided the bank statement of current bank account. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued on 15.03.2022 to explain the above-mentioned transactions and as to why the same should not be treated as income of the assessee . Finally, the AO framed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide order dated

28.03.2022 by making addition of Rs.1,34,94,000/- in respect of cash deposited in his saving bank account by treating the same as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Besides, the Ao added the interest income of Rs.33,110/-, which was not offered to tax by the assessee.

8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 25/06/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Pradip Kumar Choubey) (Rajesh Kumar) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kolkata, Dated: 25/06/2026 SAMANTA ] �ȯ��ȧĤǓ�ͧ �ͪ �\ Ē ȯͪ��/Copy of the Order forwarded to : \ �Ȣ�ȡ�ȸ/ The Appellant 1. 2. Ĥ×��ȸ/ The Respondent. 3. Ȳ�Ȳͬ��] ���] �ǕÈ�/ Concerned CIT ] ���] �ǕÈ�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 4. 5. ��ȡ�Ȣ�ĤǓ�Ǔ�ͬ �, ] ���\ �Ȣ�ȣ�\ͬ ����,/ DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. �ȡ�[�ȡ_�/ Guard file.

BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY //

Asstt.Registrar, ITAT, Kolkata