SEEMA SUREKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), KOLKATA

ITSSA 15/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 July 2025AY 2014-1515 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

A search and seizure operation was conducted on the premises of the Adhunik Group, including the appellant, Satyam Sureka, on December 17-18, 2014. The case was selected for compulsory scrutiny. During assessment for AY 2015-16, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed receipts of Rs. 7,99,820/- as profit from commodity trading. The AO treated this income as bogus, not reflected in CIB transactions, and added it as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, taxed at 30% under Section 115BBE. Additionally, the AO noted credit card payments of Rs. 3,85,514/- against drawings of Rs. 1,86,605/-. The assessee explained the credit card was for business of M/s Adhunik Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The AO treated the Rs. 3,85,514/- as concealed income under Section 56(2). The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), which partly allowed the appeal, leading to further appeals before the ITAT.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided that the addition made on account of commodity profit, amounts received from a benefit trust, and gifts received from HUF are bad in law and directed to be deleted. Specifically, regarding gifts received from non-relatives that were disclosed in the return of income and offered to tax under income from other sources, the Tribunal held that there was no concealment or suppression of income. The details were placed before the AO and CIT(A), and income already offered to tax cannot be subjected to taxation under deeming provisions. Relying on CIT v. Kailash Jewellery House, the Tribunal deleted the additions made under Section 68 in respect of disclosed gifts. The Tribunal also noted that the trust deed was made on 11.12.2010, creating Aakash Sureka Educational Trust, and the trust had paid taxes on its income. Following a co-ordinate bench decision in ACIT vs. Mrs. Sandhya A Pratap, the Tribunal held that amounts received in pursuance of dissolution of a trust cannot be termed as received without consideration. Therefore, additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) in these matters were deleted. The appeals were partly allowed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 4,96,568/- as gift under Section 56(2)(vii) from M/s Satyam Sureka Educational Trust is valid? (Assessee argues it's a gift from a trust, not taxable as income from other sources. Revenue's contention is not recorded). 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 6,31,000/- as unexplained money under Section 68, with the application of Section 115BBE, is valid when the amount was already considered in total income? (Assessee argues it was already considered and taxed. Revenue's contention is not recorded). 3. Whether the addition of Rs. 42,192/- estimating drawings for day-to-day expenses and treating it as funded from undisclosed income is valid? (Assessee argues it's an estimation and wrongly treated. Revenue's contention is not recorded). 4. Whether the treatment of miscellaneous receipts of Rs. 2,75,570/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, with tax under Section 115BBE, is valid when already considered in total income? (Assessee argues it was already considered. Revenue's contention is not recorded). 5. Whether the rejection of commodity profit of Rs. 3,98,480/- and treating it as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, with tax under Section 115BBE, is valid when already credited in books? (Assessee argues it was credited in books. Revenue's contention is not recorded). 6. Whether the addition of Rs. 4,21,900/- as gift from husband's HUF, treated as income from other sources under Section 56(2), is valid? (Assessee argues it's a gift and properly considered. Revenue's contention is not recorded). 7. Whether the addition of Rs. 2,80,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, with Section 115BBE, is valid when already considered in total income? (Assessee argues it was already considered. Revenue's contention is not recorded). 8. Whether the rejection of commodity profit of Rs. 7,99,820/- and treating it as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, with tax under Section 115BBE, is valid when already credited in books? (Assessee argues it was credited in books. Revenue's contention is not recorded).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 56(2),Section 56(2)(vii),Section 250,Section 161,Section 166

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “डी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सट"य एवं "ी "द"प कुमार चौबे, "या"यक सद"य के सम" [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member &Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member] I.T.(S.S).A. No. 13 /Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Satyam Sureka Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata

(PAN: AUCPS 5659 K) ( अपीलाथ" ) Respondent / ""यथ" Appellant / I.T.(S.S).A. No. 14/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 Sudha Sureka Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata

(PAN: AMAPS 0704 K) ) ( अपीलाथ" ) Respondent / ""यथ" Appellant / I.T.(S.S).A. No. 15/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 Seema Sureka Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata

(PAN: ALRPS 1237 R) ( अपीलाथ" ) Respondent / ""यथ" Appellant /

2 IT(S.S)A Nos. 13,14 & 15/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15&2015-16 Satyam Sureka & Ors.

I.T.A. No. 152 /Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Satyam Sureka Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata

(PAN: AUCPS 5659 K) ( अपीलाथ" ) Respondent / ""यथ" Appellant / Date of Hearing / सुनवाई 06.05.2025 क" "त"थ Date of Pronouncement/ 02.07.2025 आदेश उ"घोषणा क" "त"थ For the assessee / Shri

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,286 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →