ITO, WD-6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S JACKSON INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the First Appellate Authority had deleted the additions by following the ITAT's order for a previous assessment year. Since the facts were identical and the previous order was upheld, the Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's appeals.
What were the facts?
The revenue filed appeals against the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of unexplained cash credit. The AO treated cash deposits in the bank account as unexplained cash credit as the assessee failed to produce supporting documents for its textile business.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions made on account of unexplained cash credit, considering the assessee's failure to provide adequate evidence for its business transactions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, HON’BLE & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLE
Heard together (6 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
PER SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT:
The present five appeals are directed at the instance of the revenue against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata – 09, (hereinafter the “ld. CIT(A)”) dt. 29/03/2019, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act’), for Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13. In other words, except for Assessment Year 2010-11, the appeals are from Assessment Year 2007-08 to 2012-13. 2. In response to the notice of hearing no one has come present on behalf of the assessee and, therefore, we have heard the appeals ex-parte and proceed to decide them on merit. Before adverting to the specific grounds of appeal taken by the revenue, it is revealed that all these appeals are time barred by 171 days. In order to explain the delay, the revenue has filed application for condonation of delay along with affidavit of Shri Ashish Kumar, ITO, Ward -6(2), Kolkata. In his affidavit, he has explained the movement of file and as to how the delay has happened. After going through the detailed affidavit of Shri Ashish Kumar, we are satisfied that the revenue was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeals in time. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing of these appeals.
Padmini Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
The Grounds of appeal taken by the revenue are verbatim same except variation in the quantum. Therefore, for the facility of reference we take note of the grounds of appeal in Assessment Year 2007-08, which reads as under:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) law in deciding that the assessee had genuine business done during the year even though the assessee company could neither produce any proper trade license of any trading nor it was registered with west Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in mot appreciating the efforts of the assessing office that all so called “Sellers” and “purchasers” of the assessee company were shell entities having only technical identity with no business conducted by them.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. the Ld. CIT(A) has erred law in not appreciating the fact that the assessee company itself was identified as a s shell company indulging in sale and purchase of shares with active participation of the promoters and the transactions shown as business turnover, were nothing but accommodation entries of 'debit' as well as 'credit through layering to benefit ultimate unidentified beneficiaries.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition made by the A0 as unexplained cash credit.
That the appellant craves for leave to add, delete and modify any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”
In brief the grievance of the revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,60,15,512/-, Rs.4,27,47,762/-, Rs.4,97,16,500/-, Rs.1,61,54,218/- and Rs.1,52,09,681/- in Assessment Year 2007-08 to 2012-13 excluding 2010-11 respectively. The case of the Assessing Officer is that the assessee has made deposits of all these amounts in cash in bank account. The assessee claimed that these are the cash sales made by it in textile business. The Assessing Officer disbelieved this business on the ground that the assessee failed to produce bill exhibiting transportation of goods, loading / unloading details and place. He also observed that the assessee failed to produce cash book, ledger and complete purchase bills of these activities. Therefore, he disbelieved the very conduct of business in this line. Accordingly, he treated the cash deposits in the bank account as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and made addition in respect of these years.
Padmini Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
Dissatisfied with the assessment orders, the assessee carried the matter in appeal. The ld. First Appellate Authority has upheld the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act but deleted the additions on merit by following the order of the ITAT for Assessment Year 2010-11 in the assessee’s own case. The discussion made by the ld. CIT(A), reads as under:- Padmini Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
“ Padmini Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
Padmini Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
Padmini Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
Padmini Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
Padmini Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
With the assistance of the ld. D/R, we have gone through the record carefully. We find that there is no disparity on facts. In these orders vis-à-vis 2010- 11, the identical findings were recorded by the ld. First Appellate Authority which have been upheld by the Tribunal. Therefore, we do not find any merit in these appeals. Accordingly, all these appeals of the revenue are dismissed.
Before we part with this order, we would like to mention that as per Rule 34 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, an order is required to be pronounced preferably within ninety days from the date of hearing. We are conscious of the fact, but it is pertinent to observe that after the hearing, one of us (i.e., Vice- President) remained on tour to Mumbai, Hyderabad & Tirupati (Camp) Benches, thereafter on medical leave and, therefore, not available in Kolkata for more than one month. Due to this reason, the order could not be pronounced within 90 days and it is pronounced roughly in 98 days. Order pronounced in the Court on 14th December, 2022 at Kolkata. (RAJESH KUMAR) VICE-PRESIDENT Kolkata, Dated 14/12/2022 *SC SrPs Padmini Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
आदेश क" "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant
""यथ" / The Respondent 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयु" अपील / The CIT(A)- ( ) 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध अिधकरण अपीलीय आयकर कोलकाता/DR,ITAT, Kolkata, , , 6. गाड" फाईल /Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026