SUNIT KUMAR PATTANAYAK,HALDIA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(1), HALDIA

ITA 2576/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 October 2026AY 2020-20216 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained cash credit was not justified. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including bank statements and other supporting documents, to explain the nature and source of the cash credits. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had not properly appreciated the evidence placed on record by the assessee and had made the addition based on assumptions and presumptions. The ratio decidendi of the decision is that once the assessee provides satisfactory explanation and evidence for cash credits, the onus shifts to the Revenue to prove otherwise, and if the Revenue fails to do so, the addition cannot be sustained. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sunit Kumar Pattanayak, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata, challenging the order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 22.04.2026. This order was passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2020-21. The appeal arises from an assessment order dated 03.03.2025, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act. The ITAT order was pronounced on 14.10.2026, following a hearing on 06.10.2026. The assessee is represented by Shri C.M. Roy, AR, and the revenue by Shri Amit Kumar Barua, DR. The dispute pertains to information available with the Income Tax Department from the District Sub-Registrar.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of alleged unexplained cash credit is justified? The assessee contends that the AO erred in making the addition without properly considering the evidence and explanations provided. The assessee argues that the cash credits represent genuine transactions and that the AO has not discharged the burden of proof to establish otherwise. The assessee relies on various judicial precedents to support their claim that the onus is on the revenue to prove the cash credit is unexplained. The revenue, through the Departmental Representative (DR), argues that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation for the cash credits and that the AO was justified in making the addition based on the available information and the deeming provisions of the Act. The revenue likely relies on Section 68 of the Act, which deals with unexplained cash credits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Roy, AR
For Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Barua, DR
Hearing: 06.10.2026Pronounced: 14.10.2026

PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [“the Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 22.04.2026 with DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2026-27/1088576026(1), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2020-21, arising out of the Assessment order dated 03.03.2025 with DIN No.ITBA/AST/S/147/2024-25/1073953324(1) passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act.

2.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, as per the information available with the Income Tax Department from the District Sub-

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →