JHUNU DUTTA,DARJEELING vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, , SILIGURI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 150/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2026AY 2018-201916 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation for the discrepancy in purchase values and the cash payments for duties. The CBEC data, along with accepted customs duty payments, indicated the higher value as the actual purchase price.

What were the facts?

The assessee imported readymade garments from Bangladesh, declaring a purchase value of Rs. 15,59,59,524. However, CBEC data indicated a higher purchase value of Rs. 20,06,43,683. The assessee failed to reconcile this difference and explain cash payments for customs duty and IGST.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee satisfactorily explained the difference between declared purchase value and CBEC data, and the nature of payments for customs duty and IGST.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Sujit Basu, Advocate & Shri Rajib
For Respondent: Shri Aditya Bikram, Sr. DR
Hearing: 13.05.2026Pronounced: 13.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.150/Kol/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19

Jhunu Dutta DCIT, Circle-1, Siliguri

Arabinda Pally Main Road, PO Rabindra Sarani, Siliguri, Vs Dist. Darjeeling-734006

(PAN: ACWPD 6680 P) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Sujit Basu, Advocate & Shri Rajib Mukherjee, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Aditya Bikram, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 13.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 13.05.2026

ORDER Per George Mathan, JM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.NFAC/2017-18/10011251 dated 12.12.2025. 2. Shri Sujit Basu & Rajib Mukherjee, Advocate, represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Aditya Bikram, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

At the time of hearing, the ld. AR has filed a written submission which reads as under:

ITA No.150/Kol/2026

ITA No.150/Kol/2026

ITA No.150/Kol/2026

ITA No.150/Kol/2026

4.

It was the submission that the assessee is in the business of importing of readymade garments from Bangladesh for which she makes payments for the purchases in US dollars. It was the submission that the assessee has imported goods having total valued of Rs.15,59,59,524/- during the impugned assessment year. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer had received information from CBEC (Central Board of Excise & Customs) data that the value of the goods purchased at Rs.20,06,43,683/-. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer held that it was for the assessee to explain the reconciliation of the purchase value as shown by the assessee and as shown in the CBEC data. It was the submission that the difference between the purchase price as shown by the assessee and the CBEC data was on account of valuation done by the custom authority in respect of purchases on which the custom duty 5

ITA No.150/Kol/2026 was levied. It was the submission that the purchases have been disclosed by the assessee on the basis of letter of credit and the bills raised by the suppliers. It was the submission that the assessee has not made the payment of the difference of Rs.4,46,84,159/-. It was the submission that the CBEC data was only a figure estimated by the custom authority in respect of value of the purchases made by the assessee for the purpose of levying of custom duty. It was the submission that the addition as made by the Assessing Officer and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be deleted.

4.1 At this point, the ld. AR was asked to read para 5 of the assessment order. In para 5, the Assessing Officer has mentioned that the assessee has not satisfactorily explained the difference in the value of invoices in the ITR and CBEC data. The assessee has submitted that the differences were only on account of valuation done by the custom authorities on the goods imported by the assessee. The assessee was asked to show the reconciliation of ITR data and CBEC data. The ld. AR has not been able to show such reconciliation. The ld. AR was also requested to explain her reply to the Assessing Officer on 20.01.2021 wherein the assessee mentioned in para 6 that no bill of entry have been produced before the Assessing Officer. The reply of the assessee to the Assessing Officer dated 20.01.2021 reads as follows:

ITA No.150/Kol/2026

ITA No.150/Kol/2026

4.2 The ld. AR was also requested to show how custom duty was paid in cash as per the ledger of the assessee shown at pages 29 to 30, which reads as under:

ITA No.150/Kol/2026

ITA No.150/Kol/2026

4.3 The assessee was unable to explain the custom duty has been paid in cash. The ld. AR only submitted that the custom duty could have been paid to an agent. It was also then put to the ld. AR that the IGST tax have been paid in cash which reads as follows:

ITA No.150/Kol/2026

ITA No.150/Kol/2026

ITA No.150/Kol/2026

4.4 The ld. AR has no explanation for the same.

5.

The ld. Sr. DR was asked to place his submission. It was submitted by the ld. Sr. DR that the data was given by the custom department and the assessee has accepted the valuation as per the custom department and in so far as he has accepted the custom duty paid. It was the submission that the valuation having been accepted it is upon the assessee to explain whether she has paid or she has not paid the said valuation difference. The assessee having accepted the valuation difference, the assessee ought to show the details of the payments. The

ITA No.150/Kol/2026 assessee has not provided any details. It was submitted the addition as made by the Assessing Officer and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be upheld.

6.

We have heard the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case clearly shows that the Assessing Officer is in possession of the CBEC data which shows the purchases at Rs.20,06,43,683/-. The Assessing Officer has repeatedly given opportunity to the assessee to show how the assessee is showing these purchases of only Rs.15,59,59,524/- when the CBEC data shows much higher figure. The assessee admittedly has stated before the Assessing Officer that the payments to exporters from Bangladesh was paid through banking channel and no cash has been paid. Obviously when the exporters in Bangladesh refers a bill for a particular amount, the custom department would clearly levy duty on the said value. If the same is to be revalued, then obviously there must be some show-cause notice issued to the assessee. The fact that the assessee has accepted the value as per the CBEC data and has paid custom duty on the said value, shows that the value as shown in the CBEC data is the actual purchase price. A perusal of the custom duty paid and also IGST tax ledger shows that the payments have also been made by cash towards custom duty and IGST tax. Admittedly, the custom duty can be paid at the border or at the head-office. The assessee has also been unable to provide any reconciliation between the purchase which had shown by the assessee in ITR and the purchases as recorded in the CBEC data. It is not that the assessee has not been granted more than adequate opportunity 14

ITA No.150/Kol/2026

to explain the difference. The assessee has miserably failed to provide the information. As the assessee has unable to prove the transaction, we find no infirmity in the order of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR has also argued that the section applied is section 69A, is wrong. The assessee has not been able to explain the transaction, the valuation is very much available in the CBEC data, the evidences of payments of the custom duty are available and not disputed. Section 69A speaks of unexplained money, the transaction remained unexplained and the transaction is liable to be assessed u/s 69C. Mentioning a wrong section does make the addition invalid. Consequently, the additions as made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) stand confirmed.

7.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 13/05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [George Mathan] लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/Judicial Member

Dated: 13/05/2026 RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent – 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

ITA No.150/Kol/2026

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →