BAHARUL ISLAM KHAN,BARPETA ROAD vs. ITO WARD, BARPETA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL – GUWAHATI BENCH VIRTUAL BENCH AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 296/GTY/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Baharul Islam Khan……………………………………..………...Appellant Dudharia Market-3rd Floor North Barpeta Road, Khairabari Barpeta, Assam-781315 [PAN: AMSPK0300R] vs. ITO Ward-Barpeta……………………..……….…...…..…..Respondent Assam-781315 Appearances by: Shri Sunil Sharma, FCA, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : April 23, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : April 27, 2026 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2019-20. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2019-20, declaring total income at Rs.66,17,710/-. The case of the assessee was selected for compulsory scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued. In response to the same, assessee participated in the assessment proceedings and filed its reply return. In the case of assessee, survey operation u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on 31.10.2018 at the business premises of the assessee. During the course of survey, the assessee admitted an additional income of Rs.55,00,000/- as normal business income for the

ITA No.296/GTY/2025 Baharul Islam Khan relevant assessment year. The assessee, in compliance with the said admission duly included the said amount in his return filed for the assessment year 2019-20. While the Assessing Officer passing the assessment order accepted the return at Rs.66,17,710/- and did not make any separate additions in body of the assessment order with respect to the approximate Rs.55,00,000/-. However, while computing the tax liability, the Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs.55,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and subjected the same to tax at special rate prescribed u/s 115BBE of the Act. Thus, no addition was made in the assessment order, the said amount was effectively taxed while so computation. 3. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It was contended that the amount of Rs.55,00,000/- had already been offered income and included in the return and, therefore, no further addition or separate taxation u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE was warranted. However, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer without adjudicating the contention of the assessee regarding duplication of addition and absence of action in the assessment order. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR stated that assessee had already disclosed total income of Rs.66,17,710/- which includes the addition income of Rs.55,00,000/- offered during the survey while passing the Assessing Officer. The Ld. Assessing Officer accepted the return of income and did not make any addition u/s 68 in the body of the order. However, while computing tax, the Assessing Officer erroneously treated Rs.55,00,000/- against as unexplained income u/s 68 and applied u/s 115BBE of the Act, resulting in double taxation, such an act is not sustainable in law, particularly when there is no discussion or findings in the assessment order regarding applicability of section 68 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the computation of the 2

ITA No.296/GTY/2025 Baharul Islam Khan tax cannot travel beyond the assessment order and cannot introduce a new source of income for addition which is not part of the assessment order. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the decision of the authorities below, and fairly stated that the assessment order does not contain any specific findings u/s 68 of the Act, in receipt of addition of Rs.55,00,000/-. 6. We have heard the rival submission of the parties and perused the material available on record, it is an undisputed fact that assessee disclosed total income of Rs.66,17,710/- to the return of income and the said income included Rs.55,00,000/- as admitted during the survey and additional difference income as stated by the assessee which was accepted by the Assessing Officer without making any separate additions u/s 68 of the Act in the body of the order. Further, it is also evident that while computing the tax liability that the Assessing Officer treated Rs.55,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, and applied the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. In our considered view, we find that it is settled principle that any addition must be supported by reasons recorded in the assessment order, in absence of such reasoning, the addition cannot be sustained merely through computation. Therefore, taxing the amount against u/s 68 of the Act amounts double taxation which is impermissible in law. Moreover, the computation of income is consequential to the assessment order and cannot introduce a new addition of income without any basis in the assessment order. At the same time, we also note that the nature of characterisation of income of Rs.55,00,000/- requires proper verification, particularly whether same is to be treated as normal business income as offered by the assessee in its return. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice and

ITA No.296/GTY/2025 Baharul Islam Khan fair play, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh examination. In view of the above, we remand the issue to the file of jurisdictional Assessing Officer and directed to examine the issue and assessee is also directed to substantiate its claim with necessary documentary evidence and cooperate in the proceedings. 7. In terms of the above, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Kolkata, the 27th April, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 27.04.2026. DP, PS 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