SRI AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(3), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITSSA 116/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 September 2026AY 2013-20146 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the documents relied upon were seized from the premises of other business entities, not from the assessee's business premises. Furthermore, these documents did not bear the assessee's name, signature, or handwriting. The Tribunal observed that Section 69A of the Act applies to money, bullion, jewellery, or other valuable articles found in the possession of the assessee and not recorded in their books, for which no satisfactory explanation is offered. In this case, the documents were considered 'dumb documents' and did not fall within the purview of Section 69A. The Tribunal also held that the presumption under Section 292C of the Act cannot be drawn against the assessee when the documents were not found from his premises. Citing decisions from the Supreme Court and other High Courts, the Tribunal found the addition based on the peak balance to be unreasonable and implausible. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition. The appeals were allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sri Amar Kumar Agarwal, filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2016-17. The appeals were filed with a delay of 198 days, which the Tribunal condoned after the Revenue did not object. The core of the dispute concerns the addition of ₹35 lacs (and other amounts in subsequent years) made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and confirmed by the CIT(A). This addition was based on seized documents (marked AGH/02 to 18, AGR1 to 3, and AWF 1 to 19) which were not seized from the assessee's premises. The assessee argued that the presumption drawn by the AO under Section 292C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid as the documents were not found with him.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) on the basis of documents seized from the premises of other business entities, and not from the assessee's premises, is valid under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the addition was void ab initio because the seized documents were not found from his premises. He relied on a co-ordinate bench decision in his own case (ITA No. 1496/KOL/2025 for AY 2017-18) which held that no addition can be made based on documents not containing the assessee's name, signature, or handwriting, and that Section 69A was wrongly invoked. The assessee also contended that the presumption under Section 292C of the Act cannot be drawn against him as the documents were not found from his possession or control. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue relied on the orders of the authorities below.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 292C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, AR
For Respondent: Shri Raman Garg, DR
Hearing: 12.08.2026Pronounced: 02.09.2026

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata- 27, (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 29.03.2025, 31.03.2025, 30.03.2025 for the AY 2012-13 to 2016-17.

2.

At the outset, we note that these appeals of the assessee are barred by limitation by 198 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing these appeals. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and

3.

As the facts of facts in all these appeals are similar, hence, we would take ITA No.115/KOL/2025 for A.Y. 2012-13 as our lead case and decide the issue accordingly.

4.

The only issue raised by the assessee in the various grounds of appeal is against the confirmation of addition of ₹35 lacs by the ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO by relying on the seized documents marked as ‘AGH/02 to 18, AGR1 to 3 and AWF 1 to 19, which were not seized from the premises of the assessee and also presumption drawn by the ld. AO u/s 292C of the Act is bad in law and therefore, the addition was made on the basis of alleged documents are void ab initio.

5.

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the order of the co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 1496/KOL/2025 for A.Y. 2017-18 and others, wherein the co-ordinate bench vide order dated 18.12.2025, held that the documents seized from the premises of other business entities, it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of the said documents as these documents were not containing the name of the assessee nor bearing the signature of the assessee nor in the handwriting of the assessee and the Provisions of Section 69A of the Act were wrongly invoked by the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. AR therefore prayed that since the issue is identical to that as decided by the Tribunal in ITA No. 1496/KOL/2025 (supra). Therefore, the appeal of the assessee may kindly be

6.

The ld. DR on the other hand relied on the orders of the authorities below.

7.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the documents relied by the ld. AO to make the addition u/s 69A of the Act were found from the premises of other business entities and not from the business premises of the assessee. We also note that the said documents were not bearing the name of the assessee nor signature of the assessee and were also not in the handwriting of the assessee. We have also perused the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in Ita No. 1495/KOL/2025, wherein the addition made on the same documents were deleted by the ld. CIT (A) and the Tribunal has affirmed the order of the ld. CIT (A) on this issue by observing and holding as under:-

“11.1 The facts in brief are that during the course of search, certain incriminating documents marked as AGH02, AGH04, AGH05, AGH08, AGH10, AGH11, AGH13, AGH14, AGH15 and AGH16 were seized from the office premises at B-2/2, 2nd Floor, Gillander House, 8 N.S. Road Kolkata-1. Similarly, the documents marked as AGR-2 and AGR-3, were seized from other premises at HB-165, Salt Lake City, Kolkata. The ld. AO noted that certain cash transactions were recorded in those seized documents amounting to ₹3,12,00,000/- as cash loans received on which the interest of ₹45,73,732/- was paid which are summarized below:-

2017-18 Ajay - 1729726 AGH-02 Das babu 2500000 48500 AGH-02 Dinesh Khaitan 23400000 171680 AGH-02 Dolan Majumdar 81411 AGH-02 RK Saraf 40,00,000 11,12,054 AGH-02 Saikat Roy 18861 AGH-02 Vishnu Poddar 1300000 AGH-02 Fufaji 1344000 AGH-13

9.

The issue raised in other appeals bearing ITA Nos. 116 to 119/KOL/2025 for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2016-17 is similar to one as decided by us in ITA No. 115/KOL/2025. Accordingly, our

10.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed.

Order pronounced on 02.09.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 02.09.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//

(Manish Bhoi) Dy. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →