BINA DEVI JAIN,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2(3), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITSSA 141/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 June 2026AY 2016-177 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee herself declared a turnover of Rs. 10,83,051/- and admitted that these were cash transactions. The assessee also stated that the transactions were done through Mr. Kismat Das and that she had paid a principal of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The assessee's own summary declaration admitted gross profits of Rs. 4,52,708/-. The Tribunal noted that even if presumptive provisions were to be accepted, the assessee failed to substantiate her turnover. The assessee admitted to exclusively cash transactions and receiving profit, but failed to provide evidence such as an account statement from Mr. Das or transaction details. In the absence of any evidence to substantiate the claimed turnover, the AO was left with no option but to treat the amount as unexplained cash credit. The assessee was unable to show the source or explanation for the cash. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was upheld.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bina Devi Jain, is appealing an order by the CIT(Appeal)-26, Kolkata, for Assessment Year 2016-17. A search was conducted on the assessee's premises on February 3, 2017, following which a notice under Section 153A was issued. The assessee, wife of an alleged entry operator, filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 3,39,080/- and claimed to be in the business of rice trading with a turnover of Rs. 10,83,051/-. The assessee stated that these transactions were conducted in cash and involved one Mr. Kismat Das, to whom a principal amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid. The Assessing Officer (AO) did not accept the assessee's explanation and treated the entire sales turnover of Rs. 10,83,051/- as unexplained cash credit.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal had to decide if the entire sales turnover of Rs. 10,83,051/- declared by the assessee, which was admittedly conducted in cash and involved a third party (Mr. Kismat Das), could be treated as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the addition made by the AO was liable to be deleted. The assessee claimed a turnover of Rs. 10,83,051/- in the business of rice trading, stating these were cash transactions. The assessee also admitted to receiving gross profits of Rs. 4,52,708/- and that the transactions were done through Mr. Kismat Das, to whom Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid as principal. Revenue's Contention: The ld. CIT-DR vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kr. Das, CIT-DR
Hearing: 22.06.2026Pronounced: 22.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.(SS)A. No.141/Kol/2024 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Bina Devi Jain DCIT, Circle-2(3), Vs. Kolkata AA-33, 1st Floor RS Madhabalya Apartment, Prafulla Kanan (W) Krishnapur, Kolkata - 700101 [PAN: AGRPJ7237R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Sanjit Kr. Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 22.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 22.06.2026

O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(Appeal)-26, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] in Appeal No.CIT(A), Kolkata-20/10410/2019-20 dated 23.09.2024 for the Assessment Year 2016-17.

IT(SS)A 141/KOL/2024 2. Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sanjit Kr. Das, CIT-DR appeared for the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is wife of Shri Naresh Kr. Jain. It was the submission that Shri Naresh Kr. Jain was found to be an entry operator. It was the submission that a search on the premises of the assessee was carried out on 03.02.2017. As a consequence of the search, notice u/s 153A came to be issued on the assessee and the assessee filed her return of income disclosing income of Rs.3,39,080/-. In the course of assessment, it was submitted by the assessee that the assessee was in the business of trading in rice. The turnover of the assessee had been claimed by the assessee to be Rs.10,83,051/-. The Assessing Officer had questioned the assessee as to the details of the said gross receipt of Rs.10,83,051/-. It was the submission that the turnover was done in cash. The ld. AR also drew our attention to a summary declared regarding sale and purchase account which reads as follows:

IT(SS)A 141/KOL/2024

IT(SS)A 141/KOL/2024

3.1 It was the submission that the Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee and had treated the entire sales turnover as the unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee. It was the submission that the assessee’s turnover itself has been treated as unexplained cash credit. It was prayed that the addition as made by the Assessing Officer is liable to be deleted.

IT(SS)A 141/KOL/2024 4. In reply, the ld. CIT-DR vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case clearly shows that the assessee herself has shown a turnover of Rs.10,83,051/-. She herself has claimed that these are cash transactions. The assessee herself had stated that the transactions were done through one Mr. Kismat Das and she had paid a principal of Rs.1,00,000/-. The assessee in her summary declaration regarding sale and purchase had also admitted that she had received gross profits of Rs.4,52,708/-. However, she preferred to file a return under the presumptive provisions and declared as income of Rs.3,39,080/-. Even if presumptive provisions is to be accepted, the assessee admittedly is unable to show that her turnover is only Rs.10,83,051/-. The assessee herself admits that the transaction was exclusively done in cash. The assessee herself agrees that she has received profit of Rs.4,52,708/-. This claims also that presumptive taxation is available to the assessee itself is erroneous. The assessee has by her own action shown that the figures which have been reported in the return are wrong. The assessee claims that the assessee gave money to one Mr. Kismat Das. No account statement of

IT(SS)A 141/KOL/2024 Mr. Das has been produced. No transaction details have been produced. In the absence of any evidence having been produced to substantiate her turnover of Rs.10,83,051/-, the Assessing Officer admittedly is left no other option but to treat the said amount as undisclosed by the assessee as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee in so far as the transactions were exclusively in cash. The assessee is unable to show the source or the explanation in regard to the said cash. This being so, the addition as made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed the ld. CIT(A) stands upheld.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 22.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Rajesh Kumar) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Kolkata, Dated: 22/06/2026 RS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 1. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. संबंधित आयकर आयुक्त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. विभागीय प्रतततिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,/ DR, ITAT, Kolkata गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6.

IT(SS)A 141/KOL/2024

BY ORDER,

Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Kolkata

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →