INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S LAKSHITA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals on the grounds of low tax effect. For AY 2012-13, the tax effect was Rs. 25,56,897/-, which is below the monetary limit of Rs. 60,00,000/- as per CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024. The Senior DR could not rebut this fact or demonstrate any exception. Therefore, the appeal for AY 2012-13 was deemed not maintainable and was dismissed. The Tribunal stated that if, upon re-verification, the AO finds the tax effect to be above the limit or the case falls under an exception, the Revenue can file a Miscellaneous Application for recall of the order. The same reasoning was applied mutatis mutandis to the other appeals for AYs 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19, as their respective tax effects (Rs. 13,81,798/-, Rs. 6,70,996/-, Rs. 11,20,925/-, Rs. 50,54,359/-, and Rs. 10,67,487/-) were also below the prescribed limit. Consequently, all grounds taken by the Revenue in these appeals were also dismissed.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed six appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata 'B' Bench, challenging the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Kolkata, for Assessment Years (AYs) 2012-13, 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19. The appeals concerned additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of undisclosed income and unexplained capital deployment, which were deleted by the CIT(A). The assessee, M/s Lakshita Construction Private Limited, was represented by none, and the appeals were heard with the assistance of the Senior Departmental Representative (DR). The ITAT noted that the tax effect in the first appeal (AY 2012-13) was Rs. 25,56,897/-, which was below the monetary limit of Rs. 60,00,000/- stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024 for filing appeals before the Tribunal.
What were the issues?
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 54,17,989/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed income estimated on the basis of incriminating material found during the search (Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961)? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting the assessee's revised reconciliation and explanation of the seized pen drive without proper verification? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in excluding various cash inflows recorded in the seized pen drive from the computation of undisclosed income solely on the basis of the assessee's submissions, ignoring the incriminating nature of the seized material? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the undisclosed receipts only to the ‘Collection1’ accounts and in reducing the estimated profit rate from 11% to 5%, without any supporting evidence or cogent basis? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 24,62,722/- made on account of unexplained capital deployment, ignoring the fact that large-scale unaccounted business activities necessarily required deployment of undisclosed funds? Assessee's contentions: None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions made by the AO, specifically regarding undisclosed income estimated from seized material, accepting the assessee's revised reconciliation of a seized pen drive without proper verification, excluding cash inflows from undisclosed income computation, restricting undisclosed receipts to specific accounts and reducing the profit rate, and deleting additions on account of unexplained capital deployment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH AT KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
These six appeals filed by the Revenue are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinaf
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ramesh K Devadiga And Ors vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co-Operative Housing Society LTD And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
