SUMITRA DEVI BANKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 37(1),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2932/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 August 2026AY 2015-20163 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had already disclosed the gain from the penny stock transactions in her return of income. Therefore, the addition of the same income under Section 68 constituted a double addition and was without basis. Consequently, the addition under Section 69 was also deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared income from penny stock transactions. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings and added the income under Section 68 and unaccounted commission under Section 69, alleging escapement of income. The CIT(A) confirmed these additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of income already declared in the return of income amounts to double addition and is therefore invalid. Whether reassessment proceedings initiated based on information without verifying disclosure are valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 68,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Yogesh Kumar US&Shri Gopalan Gurusamy]

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member &Shri Gopalan Gurusamy, Accountant Member] I.T.A. No. 2932/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sumitra Devi Banka Vs. ITO, Ward-37(1), Kolkata

(PAN: AEPPB 6663 R) ( अपीलाथ� ) Respondent / ��यथ� Appellant / Date of Hearing / सुनवाई 20.08.2026 क� �त�थ Date of Pronouncement/ 31.08.2026 आदेश उ�घोषणा क� �त�थ For the Appellant/ Shri P. K. Himmat Maitin, AR �नधा�रती क� ओर से For the Respondent/ Shri Debasish Biswas, JCIT राज�व क� ओर से ORDER / आदेश Per Gopalan Gurusamy, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s 154 r.w.s 250 of the Act dated 9.10.2025 for the AY 2015-16. 2. Brief facts on record are that the assessee filed return of income for AY 2015- 16 declaring total income of Rs. 3,12,160/- on 20.08.2015. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act based on the information that the assessee had entered into transaction in penny stock during the year resulting in escapement of income to the tune of Rs. 2,65,848/-. In response to the notice issued u/s 148, the assessee filed return of income declaring same total income of Rs. 3,12,160/-. The Assessing Officer after considering the assessee’s reply made impugned addition of

2 I.T.A. No.2932/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sumitra Devi Banka Rs. 2,50,800/- under Section 68 of the Act and Rs. 15,048/- towards unaccounted commission earned from the transaction u/s 69 of the Act.

3.

The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the said addition vide order dated 09.10.2025. Aggrieved against the order of Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed this appeal before us.

4.

The Ld. A.R submitted paper book and showed with reference to the Computation of Income statement, that the assessee has shown income from the sale of scrips to the tune of Rs. 2,49,697/- under the head income from other sources and which is included in the total income declared by her of Rs. 3,12,160/-. A copy of contract note with M/s Trinay Securities Trading Pvt. Ltd. dated 10.06.2014 was enclosed , which indicate the purchase of scrips for a value of Rs. 6,27,000/- and sales of the said scrip for Rs. 8,77,800/- which has resulted in a gain of Rs. 2,50,629/-. The Ld. A.R submitted that this gain was duly reflected in the return of income. A copy of ledger account with M/s Trinay Securities Trading Pvt. Ltd. was also enclosed in the paper book. Based on these documents, the Ld. AR contended that the assessee has disclosed her income from her transaction with Trinay Securities Trading Pvt. Ltd. in her return of income, but the Assessing Officer added the same income again in the reassessment order dated 30.03.2022 which amounts to double addition. It was also submitted that the addition made u/s 68 of the Act is totally erroneous and mechanically confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. A.R further argued as there was no escapement of income the reassessment proceedings initiated was invalid and liable to be quashed.

5.

On the contrary the Ld. D.R relied on the orders of both the authorities below by arguing that the addition was made based on information received. We have heard both the parties. A perusal of the impugned assessment order 6. would show that the Assessing Officer had reopened reassessment with reference to her transaction with M/s Trinay Securities Trading Pvt. Ltd. wherein the purchase of scrip was stated to be for Rs. 6,27,000/- and its sale for Rs. 8,77,800/- resulting in a

3 I.T.A. No.2932/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sumitra Devi Banka profit of Rs. 2,50,800/-. This was also discussed in para 4.7 of the impugned assessment order . It appears that the Assessing Officer had come to a conclusion that there was escapement of income merely because the information has been received from the Investigation Wing. As the assessee had already declared the gain from its transaction with M/s Trinay Securities Trading Pvt. Ltd. in her return of income, we are of the view that the addition of the very same income under Section 68 has no basis, and would amount to double addition. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned addition of Rs. 2,50,800/- and also the consequent addition of Rs.15,048/-made under sec. 69. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 31st August, 2026 Sd/- Sd/-

(Yogesh Kumar US) (Gopalan Gurusamy) Judicial Member/�या�यक सद�य Accountant Member/लेखा सद�य Dated: 31st August, 2026 SM, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- Sumitra Devi Banka, 2B, Grant Lane, 4th Floor, Room No. 56, Bowbazar S.O., Kolkata-700012 2. Respondent – ITO, Ward-37(1), Kolkata 3. Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Ld. Pr. CIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →