SARLA BHAIYA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1),, KOLKATA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

I.T.A. No. 1517/Kol/2025 (Assessment Year 2023-2024)

Sarla Bhaiya, 1, R N Mukherjee Road, 5th Floor, Room No. 52, Kolkata - 700001 [PAN: ADEPB3757G] …..…...…………….... Appellant vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata - 700107 ……..…...…………….... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AR Department represented by : Raman Garg, CIT, DR

Date of concluding the hearing : 12.08.2026 Date of pronouncing the order : 30.10. 2026 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM

The present appeal filed by the assessee arise from order dated 17.06.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Kolkata-20 [hereafter referred to “the Ld. CIT(A)] for the Assessment Year 2023-24.

2 ITA No. 1517/Kol/2026 Sarla Bhaiya Rs.41,85,760/- was inventorised, out of which cash of Rs.36,40,000/- was seized. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.36,00,000/- under section 69A of the Act on account of unexplained cash. The assessee explained before the Assessing Officer that the amount of Rs.36,00,000/- did not belong to her but belonged to her deceased mother-in-law, Smt. Tansukhi Devi Bhaiya. It was explained that the deceased had accumulated the amount from sale of jewellery over a period of time and had entrusted the amount to the assessee for carrying out her wishes regarding temple construction. In support of the explanation, the assessee furnished a copy of the Will dated 14.04.2022 executed by Smt. Tansukhi Devi Bhaiya. The assessee also explained that, since the deceased had resided at different places during her lifetime and had subsequently passed away, the documents relating to the historical sale of jewellery could not be traced. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the assessment order and the submissions furnished by the assessee, sustained the addition of Rs.36,00,000/-. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that evidence such as jewellery bills, valuation report, details of purchasers, wealth-tax return, balance sheet and other documents relating to the accumulation and sale of jewellery were not available and accordingly upheld the addition. The Ld. CIT(A), however, allowed the assessee's claim regarding credit of the seized cash in accordance with section 132B of the Act. 4. Ground Nos. 2 and 4 raised by the assessee are interconnected and are directed against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of Rs.36,00,000/- out of the cash found/seized during the course of search, despite the explanation of the assessee that the said cash belonged to her deceased mother-in-law, Smt. Tansukhi

3 ITA No. 1517/Kol/2026 Sarla Bhaiya Devi Bhaiya, and was entrusted to the assessee for carrying out the wishes expressed by her in the Will. Ground No. 3 is directed against the action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition on the ground that the assessee failed to explain the seized cash in her statement recorded during the course of search, whereas, according to the assessee, no such statement was ever recorded. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials on records. During the course of search, cash aggregating to Rs.41,85,760/- was found. Out of the cash found at the premises situated at 1, Prince Gulam Mohammed Road, Kolkata, cash of Rs.30,00,000/- was found, out of which Rs.25,00,000/- was seized. At 1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata, cash of Rs.11,85,760/- was found, out of which Rs.11,40,000/- was seized. The assessee explained that the amount of Rs.36,00,000/- represented cash belonging to her deceased mother-in-law, Smt. Tansukhi Devi Bhaiya. The assessee explained that the deceased had accumulated the amount over a period of time from sale of jewellery and had entrusted the money to the assessee for the purpose of carrying out her wishes regarding temple construction. In support of the explanation, the assessee relied upon the Will dated 14.04.2022 executed by the deceased. The Will recorded the wishes of the deceased regarding the amount and its intended utilisation. The explanation furnished by the assessee before the lower authorities was that the cash did not belong to her and that she was holding the amount belonging to the deceased. The Ld. CIT(A), however, rejected the claim of the assessee principally on the ground that no independent documentary evidences had been produced to substantiate the sale of jewellery by the deceased and the consequent generation of cash therefrom. The Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that, in the absence of supporting evidences establishing the

4 ITA No. 1517/Kol/2026 Sarla Bhaiya sale of the jewellery and receipt of the sale consideration, the assessee’s explanation regarding the availability and subsequent utilisation of such cash could not be accepted and accordingly sustained the addition of Rs.36,00,000/-. It is pertinent to note that the genuineness and validity of the Will were neither doubted by the Ld. CIT(A) nor disputed by the Department. Thus, the rejection of the assessee’s explanation was essentially on account of the absence of independent evidence regarding the sale of jewellery and consequent generation of cash, and not on account of any adverse finding regarding the genuineness of the Will. 6. Before us, the assessee has filed an application seeking admission of additional evidence. The additional evidence comprises declarations and invoice copies along with PAN and Aadhaar particulars of (i) Om Prakash, (ii) Babu Lal Sharma, (iii) Sandeep, (iv) Ashok Kumar Upadhyay and (v) Arvind Jakmola and affidavits along with PAN and Aadhaar particulars of (i) Amit Toshniwal, (ii) Sangeeta Devi Ghorawat and (iii) Chandra Prakash Sarda. It has been submitted that the aforesaid persons had purchased gold/jewellery from Smt. Tansukhi Devi Bhaiya and that the documents now produced provide corroboration of the explanation furnished by the assessee regarding the source and ownership of the cash. 7. We have considered the application for admission of additional evidence and the submissions of the assessee. We find that the additional evidence sought to be placed on record is directly relevant to the issue under consideration. The Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition, inter alia, on the ground that there was no independent evidence regarding the sale of jewellery by the deceased. The additional evidence now produced consists of declarations, affidavits and invoices of persons stated to have purchased gold/jewellery from

5 ITA No. 1517/Kol/2026 Sarla Bhaiya the deceased and therefore directly addresses the very factual aspect which weighed with the Ld. CIT(A) while sustaining the addition. 8. We further note that the explanation furnished by the assessee before the lower authorities was that the cash of Rs.36,00,000/- belonged to her deceased mother-in-law and represented money accumulated by her from sale of jewellery. Thus, the assessee is not setting up a new explanation before us. The additional evidence is sought to be produced for the purpose of corroborating the explanation which had already been furnished before the lower authorities. 9. The Will dated 14.04.2022 also assumes relevance in considering the additional evidence. The said Will was executed prior to the search proceedings and records the wishes of the deceased regarding the amount and its utilisation for temple construction. The Ld. CIT(A) has also recorded the existence of the Will and its date while considering the explanation of the assessee. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumari & Ors. v. Surinder Pal Sharma, Civil Appeal No.9683 of 2019, decided on 17.12.2019, has reiterated the requirements relating to proof of a Will under section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and the requirement of establishing its due execution and attestation. In the present case, the Will is being relied upon along with the other material relating to the underlying transactions and the circumstances in which the cash was stated to have been accumulated and entrusted to the assessee. 11. Section 69A of the Act applies where the assessee is found to be the owner of money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such asset is not recorded in the books of account and the explanation regarding the nature and source thereof is not satisfactory. Thus, the question as to the ownership of the money found during the course

6 ITA No. 1517/Kol/2026 Sarla Bhaiya of search is material for determining the applicability of the provision. Further, the revenue has also not challenged the validity of the said will. 12. In the present case, the assessee has consistently stated that the amount of Rs.36,00,000/- belonged to her deceased mother-in-law, Smt. Tansukhi Devi Bhaiya. The assessee had also relied upon the Will dated 14.04.2022 and has now placed on record declarations, affidavits and invoices of persons stated to have purchased gold/jewellery from the deceased. These documents are relevant to the explanation furnished by the assessee. 13. We find that the additional evidence requires examination by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer may verify the documents and the persons concerned and consider the same along with the Will dated 14.04.2022 and the other material available on record. 14. In the above circumstances, we admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee and restore the issue relating to the addition of Rs.36,00,000/- to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. 15. The Assessing Officer shall examine the additional evidence, including the declarations, affidavits and invoices furnished by the assessee, and consider the same, the Assessing Officer shall thereafter decide only this issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 16. In view of the above discussion, Ground Nos. 2, 3 and 4 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 17. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is general in nature and does not require any separate adjudication.

7 ITA No. 1517/Kol/2026 Sarla Bhaiya 18. Ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is also general in nature and does not require any separate adjudication. 19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 30.10.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (DUVVURU RL REDDY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (VICE PRESIDENT) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 30.10.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS