MUKUL LAHKAR,TEZPUR vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

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 No.92/GTY/2026 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Mukul Lahkar…………………………………………………..…..Appellant Rubber Bagan, Near Chandi Mandap Tezpur, Ward No.15, Tezpur Assam-784001 [PAN: AARPL7254N] vs. Central Circle-2, Guwahati………………………..……...…..…..Respondent Assam-781005 Appearances by: None, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : May 07, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : May 08, 2026 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.10.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2022-23. 2. The assessee has preferred the appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 49 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that there was a reasonable cause which prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Accordingly, the delay of 49 days is condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of running an IMFL retail outlet. During the

ITA No.92/GTY/2026; A.Y: 2022-23 Mukul Lahkar course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that cash amounting to Rs. 7,00,000/- was seized on 10.03.2021 from Shri Pradip Hazarika by the Static Surveillance Team. Subsequently, the said cash was requisitioned u/s 132A of the Act, thereafter, reassessment proceedings were initiated for the assessment years 2021-22 and 2022-23 on the same set of facts. Subsequently, the reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2021-22 were dropped by the department. However, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment for the assessment year 2022-23 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act by making an addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act on account of unexplained money and taxed the same u/s 115BBE of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer, the source of the cash was not satisfactorily explained due to variation in the explanation furnished by the assessee. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The contention of the assessee before the authorities below was that, in the return of income for the assessment year 2022-23, was filed u/s 44AD of the Act, therefore, there was no mandatory requirement to maintain books of account or prepare a balance sheet. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the explanation of the assessee and added the entire amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- to the income of the assessee by passing an assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notices, except for filing an adjournment application. Since the issues involved are smaller and the assessee failed to appear despite service of notices, we proceeded to hear the matter with the assistance of the Ld. DR. 6. The Ld. DR supported the decision of the authorities below due to non-furnishing of proper documents and explanation by the assessee.

ITA No.92/GTY/2026; A.Y: 2022-23 Mukul Lahkar The authorities below have rightly passed the impugned order and sustained the additions. 7. We, after hearing the submissions of the Ld. DR and perusing the material available on record, we noticed that the cash amounting to Rs. 7,00,000/- was seized on 10.03.2021, which pertains to the assessment year 2021-22 in the case of the assessee. Though reassessment proceedings were initiated for both the assessment years 2021-22 and 2022-23 respectively, the reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2021-22 were subsequently dropped by the department. Therefore, the issues involved in the present appeal pertain only to the assessment year 2022-23. It is pertinent to note that the financial year relevant to the assessment year 2022-23 commenced from 01.04.2021 and ended on 31.03.2022. The transaction relating to Rs. 7,00,000/- had admittedly taken place on 10.03.2021, which falls in the assessment year 2021-22. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment year 2022-23 in respect of the said cash does not pertain to the previous year under consideration. Accordingly, we are of the view that the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not in accordance with law, since the transaction does not pertain to the year under consideration, i.e., assessment year 2022-23. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- made in the hands of the assessee for the current assessment year. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Kolkata, the 08th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 08.05.2026. DP, PS 3

ITA No.92/GTY/2026; A.Y: 2022-23 Mukul Lahkar 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