BEDBANI DAS,,HALDIA vs. ITO, WARD 27(1),, HALDIA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1414/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 July 2026AY 2020-20214 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the authorities below disbelieved the assessee's explanation without any contrary material or inquiry. The assessee had provided details of the source of funds from his son, colleagues, and relatives, along with their PANs.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased an immovable property for Rs. 9.92 lakhs without filing an income tax return. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 7,75,000/- on account of unexplained investment. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of unexplained investment is justified when the assessee has provided sufficient explanation and supporting documents for the source of funds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajaria, AR
For Respondent: Shri Sandip Mandal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 28.07.2026Pronounced: 29.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1414/KOL/2026 Assessment Year:2020-21

Bedbani Das Vs. ITO, Ward-27(1), Haldia C/o. M/s Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, C.R. Avenue, 3rd Floor, Kolkata, West Bengal-700072 [PAN: COMPD9034D] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S. Jhajaria, AR Respondent by : Shri Sandip Mandal, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 28.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 29.07.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: This Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 20.02.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2020-21.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, a notice u/s 148A(d) came to be issued based on the information that Assessee purchased immovable property for consideration of Rs.9.92 lakhs. No income tax return was filed by the Assessee for the year under consideration. An Assessment Order came to be passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by making an addition of Rs.7,75,000/- on account of unexplained

ITA No.1414/KOL/2026 Bedbani Das; A.Y: 2020-21 investment by invoking provisions of section 69 of the Act. As against the Assessment Order dated 19.02.2025, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide Order dated 20.02.2026, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Assessee apart from making detail argument on Ground No.1 of the Appeal on the legal issue, has also made submissions on merits. It is the contention of the Ld. AR that the source of total amount of Rs.7,75,000/- has been duly proved before the Authorities below, however, the same has not been believed that without there being any contrary materials. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the identity and credit-worthiness of the persons from whom the fund were received are duly proved and they are none other than son, colleagues and relatives of the Assessee. Thus, sought for deletion of addition.

4.

Per contra, the Ld. DR relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities, sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

5.

We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. During the Assessment proceedings, Assessee has been issued with the show cause notice to prove the source of investment. The Assessee has explained to the Assessing Officer that Assessee has received the amount from his son, colleagues and relatives and provided the PAN

ITA No.1414/KOL/2026 Bedbani Das; A.Y: 2020-21 numbers of all the persons. For the sake of ready reference, the details given by the Assessee is reproduced as under:-

“The source of investment of Rs.10,38,417/- my share determined by IT Department in purchase of flat but actual share of my flat Rs.7,75,000/- of which payment was made through my SBI A/C (A/c- 30609328857, Chaitanyapur Br.) that amount received from the following persons in details as follows:-

Sr. Transaction Amount Relation with PAN No. date with SBI (Rs.) persons (i) 03/05/2019 4,50,000/- Son-Saikat Das CRCPD1894C (service) (ii) 06/05/2019 1,00,000/- Colleague-Tulu AXBPJ7955R Rani Jiti (Service) (iii) 22/05/2019 2,00,000/- Relative-Shyamali AIRPD0004C Das (Pensioner) (iv) 25,000/- Past Savings

However, both the Authorities below have disbelieved the explanation of the Assessee. Before us, the Ld. AR has also produced the affidavit of all the three transactions in support his contention. We are of the opinion that the Authorities below without there being any reason or any contrary material, disbelieved the version of the Assessee and not made any enquiry before making the impugned addition. In view of the above, an addition of Rs.7,75,000/- made by the Assessing Officer which has been sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby deleted.

ITA No.1414/KOL/2026 Bedbani Das; A.Y: 2020-21 6. In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 29.07.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAKESH MISHRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29.07.2026 DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //TRUE COPY//

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →