BAIDYANATH DUTTA,VISHNUPUR vs. ITO, WARD 3(1),, BANKURA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 304/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2026AY 2020-20215 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the transactions were conducted on behalf of Bank of India, as evidenced by certificates from the bank. Therefore, treating these amounts as unexplained money under Section 69A was incorrect. The Tribunal also found that an addition of Rs. 4,23,420 was erroneous as this income was already declared by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a business correspondent for Bank of India, had significant deposits in their bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated a large portion of these deposits as unexplained money, as the assessee's declared income and turnover were much lower. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's addition.

What were the issues?

Whether deposits made by a business correspondent on behalf of a bank can be treated as unexplained money. Whether income already declared by the assessee can be added again as unexplained income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 148,Section 147,Section 44AD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AR
For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR
Hearing: 22.04.2026Pronounced: 20.05.2026

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 15.12.2025 for the AY 2020-21.

2.

The issue raised by the assessee in the ground nos. 2 & 3 which are as under:-

“2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the action of the CIT(A) confirm the addition made by the AO Rs.2,31,00,415/- as unexplained money u/s 69A on certain hypothesis contrary to the material evidences on record renders the addition has arbitrary, excessive and bad in law. 3) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the action of the CIT(A) to remand it back to AO the addition made of Rs.4,23,420/- as unexplained income even though such income was already considered as income in the original return is erroneous and bad in law.”

4.

The ld. CIT (A) in the appellate proceedings, confirmed the addition as made by the ld. AO.

5.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that undisputedly the assessee is a business correspondent of Bank of India. A certificate from Bank of India dated 21.03.2025, is available at page no.108 of the paper book which is extracted below:

6.

A perusal of the above certificate reveals that the assessee is a business correspondent of Bank of India and is doing transactions of deposits and withdrawals on behalf of bank of India. The assessee received money from the customers on behalf of bank of India and deposited the same in his account with bank of India and thereafter the amounts are remitted to the bank of India account. A certificate is also attached at page no.107, which certified that the assessee has been appointed as business correspondent since 15.12.2010 and it is further stated that he is authorized to open SB account, recovery of

7.

So far as the addition of ₹4,23,420/- is concerned, we note that the assessee has earned ₹4,23,420 as LIC from various companies. The ld. AO added the same when the assessee did not respond as unexplained income of the assessee, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT (A). In our opinion, the assessee suo moto declared the income in the return of income filed by the assessee. Therefore, the action of the ld. AO as sustained by the ld. CIT (A) is not correct. Accordingly, we set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) and direct the ld. AO to delete the addition. The ground no. 3 is allowed.

8.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 20.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 20.05.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS

Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//

Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →