M/S. GOUTAM CHOWDHURY,BANKURA vs. ITO, WARD 3(1), BANKURA,, BANKURA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2095/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 October 2026AY 2015-20167 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue was purely factual and clearly discernible from the documentary evidence presented. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the difference of Rs. 1,00,03,228/- in contractual receipts between the assessee firm's books and Form 26AS arose due to the wrong deduction of TDS and subsequent incorrect reporting of contractual receipts belonging to the individual, Shri Goutam Chowdhury, under the firm's PAN. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished relevant documents, including audited Profit & Loss accounts for both the firm and the individual, which clearly showed the breakdown of contractual receipts. A certificate from West Bengal Housing & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. further corroborated the assessee's claim that specific contractual receipts belonged to the individual. Therefore, the Tribunal found no undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee firm. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the addition of Rs. 1,00,03,228/-. The ratio decidendi is that discrepancies in Form 26AS arising from misreporting of TDS due to incorrect PAN attribution, if substantiated by documentary evidence, do not constitute undisclosed income.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Goutam Chowdhury (firm), filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2015-16. The appeal was filed one day late, but the delay was condoned by the Tribunal as the reasons were found to be bonafide. The core dispute involved an addition of Rs. 1,00,03,228/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) as alleged undisclosed income. The assessee had disclosed contractual receipts of Rs. 3,07,63,587/- in its books, while Form 26AS showed Rs. 4,07,66,815/-. The AO treated the difference as undisclosed income. The assessee contended that this difference arose due to wrong deduction of TDS and consequent misreporting of contractual receipts belonging to an individual, Shri Goutam Chowdhury (PAN: ACMPC5807D), under the firm's PAN.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 1,00,03,228/- as alleged undisclosed income is sustainable, considering the assessee's claim that the difference in contractual receipts between its books and Form 26AS was due to misreporting of TDS, pertaining to an individual's income under the firm's PAN? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the AO erred in making the addition without appreciating that the difference in contractual receipts was due to wrong TDS deduction and reporting. The assessee provided audited financial statements for both the firm and the individual, along with a certificate from West Bengal Housing & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., to substantiate that certain contractual receipts reflected in Form 26AS belonged to the individual, Shri Goutam Chowdhury, and not the firm. The assessee relied on the documentary evidence to prove the factual accuracy of its claims. Revenue's contentions: The judgment records no specific arguments from the Revenue's side regarding the merits of the addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agarwal, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ambrish Mishra, DR
Hearing: 20.08.2026Pronounced: 21.10.2026

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 27.03.2026 for the AY 2015-16.

2.

At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 1 day. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reason for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons and, hence, we condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal in the following paras. 3. The only issue on merit involved in the case is the arbitrary addition of the alleged undisclosed income of Rs.1,00,03,228/-. The assessee firm had disclosed the contractual receipts of Rs.3,07,63,587 in its books of account whereas in Form 26AS, the contractual receipts received were appearing as Rs.4,07,66,815. The said difference of Rs.1,00,03,228 was treated as undisclosed income of the assessee although as a matter of facts there was no undisclosed income. The said difference in Contractual receipts had arisen due to wrong deduction of TDS and consequent wrong reporting of contractual receipts, belonging to Individual Shri Goutam Chowdhury (PAN: ACMPC5807D), under the PAN of assessee firm viz. M/s. Goutam Chowdhury(PAN: AAFFG8734L). 4. The Assessing Officer erred in making addition of 1,00,03,228,on account of alleged under statement of income without appreciating that the alleged difference in the contractual receipts of ₹3,07,63,587/- as reported in the books of account of the assessee firm vis a vis contractual receipts of Rs.4,07,66,815 as appearing in Form 26AS was due to wrong deduction of TDS and consequent wrong reporting of contractual receipts, belonging to Individual Goutam Chowdhury (PAN: ACMPC5807D), under the PAN of assessee viz. M/s. Goutam Chowdhury (PAN: AAFFG8734L). 5. The assessee furnished the relevant documents of M/S Goutam Chowdhary (Firm) and Goutam Chowdhary(Individual) along with the copies of Income Tax Acknowledgements, Audited Balance sheets, Profit & Loss Accounts for the year ended 31.03.2015.The said audited Profit and Loss account of the M/S Goutam Chowdhary (Firm) reflected a gross contractual receipt of Rs. 3,09,01,213/- and audited P & L account of the Goutam Chowdhary (Individual) showed gross contractual receipts of Rs. 2,12,74,086/- from Contract Works. The said documents showed break-up of Contractual receipts of Individual Goutam Chowdhury (PAN: ACMPC5807D) and assessee firm viz. M/s. Goutam Chowdhury (PAN: AAFFG8734L). The said details showed contractual receipts of Rs.58,47,652/-, Rs.30,09,607/- and Rs.35,96,864/-, aggregating to Rs.1,24,54,123 were forming part of turnover of Individual Goutam Chowdhury (PAN: ACMPC5807D) which was wrongly reflected in Form 26AS of the assessee firm. Similarly amount of Rs.4,07,905/- and Rs. 20,43,00,00/-, aggregating to Rs.24,50,905, pertaining to assessee firm viz. M/s. Goutam Chowdhury (PAN: AAFFG8734L) wrongly appeared in Form 26AS of Goutam Chowdhury (PAN: ACMPC5807D). The net difference of Rs.1,00,03,228 was thus arbitrarily added in the hands of the assessee firm as undisclosed income. The said break-up of the Contractual receipts is asunder:

SRI Goutam ChowdhuryIndividual M/SGoutamChowdhury Firm 13,57,100 10,69,899 30,00,033 30,00,033 74,62,863 31,33,745 82,41,668 58,47,652 35,43,781 53,18,638 22,85,866 30,09,607 35,96,864 4,07,895

6.

The assessee also Submitted a certificate issued by the West Bengal Housing & infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. wherein it has been certified that the aforesaid details showed that three contractual receipts of Rs.58,47,652/-, Rs.30,09,607/- and Rs.35,96,864/-were belonging to Individual Goutam Chowdhury (PAN: ACMPC5807D). The said certificate is placed at Pages 42 to 43 of the paper book substantiating that facts as has been narrated by the appellant whuhc are all correct and true.

7.

As the issue is totally factual and clearly discernible from the documentary evidences furnished before us, we are inclined to set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs.1,00,03,228/-.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Page 4 of 7 Order pronounced on 21.10.2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

(PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 26.10.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// // TRUE COPY //

Dy. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Sr. Particulars Date Initials Person No. concern ed 1 Draft dictated direct on computer 05.10.26 Sr.PS 2 Draft placed before author 05.10.26 Sr.PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the second Member AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7 File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 8 Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 9 Date of dispatch of Order 10 Dictation Sheet is attached herewith No

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →