ARUN KUMAR ,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(3), PATNA

Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.10.2025 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 2016-17. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, in the case of assessee during the course of survey proceedings undisclosed business income amounting to Rs.14,94,000/-. The said receipts were admitted by the assessee during the survey. During the survey, various incriminating material were found at include Booking Diaries, Receipts, Booking Pad, Loose Papers, Day Book, Pen Drive contained relevant data. Despite the above, assessee filed return of income, declaring income of Rs.5,38,190/- for the

I.T.A. No.587/Pat/2025 Arun Kumar; AY: 2016-17 assessment year 2016-17. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under compulsory category and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. However, assessee failed to comply with the statutory notices. However, the assessee partially complies to the notice by submitting certain documents. However, the Assessing Officer did not satisfy with such submission and added the difference amount of Rs.9,56,210/- (Rs.14,94,400/- - Rs.5,38,190/-) was added to the total income of the assessee as undisclosed income. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however, the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts and material on record, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. It was observed that assessee had admitted the undisclosed receipts during the survey and failed to reconcile or justify the lower income declared in the return. Before us the Ld. AR contended the order passed by the authorities below is bad in law and liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the order of the lower authorities and submitted the non-disclosed receipts of Rs.14,94,400/- were admitted during the survey and the assessee has failed to explain why only Rs.5,38,190/- was declared in the income. Therefore, addition of Rs.9,56,210/- was rightly sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival submission of the parties and perused the material available on record, it is an undisputed fact that undisclosed receipts of Rs.14,94,400/- were detected during the survey and the same was admitted by the assessee. During the survey, supporting material such as Booking Diaries, Receipts, Booking Pad, Loose Papers, Day Book and Electronics Data were impounded. In the return, the assessee declared a significant lower income to the return without proper explanation. Even before the Tribunal, the assessee has failed to give any material on record controverted the findings of the lower authorities or

I.T.A. No.587/Pat/2025 Arun Kumar; AY: 2016-17 justify the discrepancy. Thus, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is based on cogent material and admission of the assessee. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Kolkata, the 28th April, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Laxmi Prasad Sahu] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 28.04.2026 DP, PS 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