S P ENTERPRISE,NEAR BHAGABAT DHAM vs. ITO WARD-1(2), AAYAKAR BHAWAN

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI ‘DB’ BENCH AT KOLKATA [Virtual Court] Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No(s). 160/GTY/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2017-18 S P Enterprise ITO, Ward-1(2), Guwahati Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: ACWFS5965L Appearances: Assessee represented by : Adj. petition, None Attends. Department represented by : Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT. Date of concluding the hearing : 14-May-2026 Date of pronouncing the order : 01-June-2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2017-2018 dated 21.01.2026. The assessee sought adjournment but since there was no justification for seeking the adjournment, therefore, the application was rejected and the appeal was heard with the assistance of the Ld. Sr. DR. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “(1)(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the Appellant’s case and in law the learned CIT(Appeals) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.43,24,774/- made by the Assessing officer u/s 69A by wrongly treating the appellant’s bank deposits as unexplained money.

"6.2 During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that there were unexplained deposits/credits amounting to Rs.43,24,774/- in the appellant’s bank account. The appellant was specifically asked to substantiate the nature and source of these deposits. Although the appellant submitted certain explanations claiming that the deposits represented partners’ capital, realization from sundry debtors, and redeposits of earlier withdrawals, it is noted that no independent documentary evidence such as the books of accounts, copy of ITR filed for the relevant assessment year and bank statement of partners, bills & vouchers were furnished to substantiate such claims. 6.3 Mere entries by themselves cannot be treated as conclusive evidence, especially when the appellant fails to establish the genuineness of the transactions. The appellant has failed to submit the bills and vouchers in support of the balances. Moreover, the AO observed that the appellant first deposited the cash in bank account and then withdrew the same rather than the other way around which contradicts the claim of rerolling of cash. The AO has elaborately discussed above discrepancies in the assessment order, which have not been satisfactorily rebutted by the appellant either during assessment or appellate proceedings. The explanation offered is general in nature and lacks corroborative evidence. 6.4 It is also observed that sufficient opportunities were provided to the appellant during the assessment proceedings to submit evidence. The plea that assessment was completed in haste due to limitation is not acceptable. In the absence of satisfactory explanation regarding the nature and source of cash deposits, the AO was justified in invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Hence, the addition of Rs.43,24,774/- made by the AO under section 69A read with section 115BBE is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed." 6.1 As regards the addition on account of profit, he confirmed the addition by his findings as under:

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. S P Enterprise, Jyotikuchi, Lokhra Road, Guwahati, Assam, 781034. 2. ITO, Ward-1(2), Guwahati, G.S Road, Guwahati, Assam, 781005. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Guwahati Benches, Guwahati. 6. Guard File. //True copy // By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata