RABIUL ISLAM GAIN,BASIRHAT vs. ITO, WARD 49(1),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1485/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 December 2025AY 2013-2014Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM\nAND\nSHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM\nITA No.1485/KOL/2025\n(Assessment Year: 2013-14)\nRabiul Islam Gain\nGopalpur, Sangrampur, Basirhat,\nNorth 24 Parganas,\nWest Bengal-743286\n(Appellant)\nVs.\nITO, Ward 49(1),\nUttarapan Complex, Ultadanga,\nManiktala Civic Centre, Kolkata-\n700054, West Bengal\n(Respondent)\nPAN No. ANBPG1674J\nITA No. 1487/KOL/2025\n(Assessment Year: 2013-14)\nTapan Kumar Pal\nVill-Parnaihati, P.O. Sangrampur,\nNorth 24 paraganas, West\nBengal74345 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹6,93,59,900/- on account of cash deposits and the related interest income of ₹9,12,342/- cannot be made on a protective basis in the hands of the assessees. The reasoning was that Mr. Bark Biswas had undisputedly owned the cash deposits and had admitted this ownership in an affidavit. Furthermore, these accounts and transactions were disclosed in the balance sheet of Biswas Enterprises, owned by Mr. Bark Biswas. Mr. Bark Biswas was also assessed to tax on these amounts. The Tribunal found that when the primary owner of the income has admitted and owned up to the cash deposits and disclosed them in his own assessment, there is no scope for adding the same income protectively in the hands of the assessee, who was merely an employee. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the addition. The ratio decidendi is that income admitted and accounted for by the primary owner cannot be added protectively to an employee's income.

What were the facts?

These appeals by two different assessees, Rabiul Islam Gain and Tapan Kumar Pal, are against orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi and CIT(A)-15, Kolkata for Assessment Year 2013-14. The appeals were filed with significant delays of 497 and 2022 days, respectively, which the Tribunal condoned after finding the reasons to be bonafide. The core issue concerns the addition of alleged undisclosed cash deposits totaling ₹6,93,59,900/- and related interest income of ₹9,12,342/- made on a protective basis in the hands of the assessees. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the cases based on information of cash deposits into the assessees' bank accounts. During assessment, the assessees, who were employees of Bark Biswas, stated they had no knowledge of the cash transactions, attributing them to their employer. Mr. Bark Biswas, in an affidavit, admitted the cash belonged to him and was transacted by him.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹6,93,59,900/- on account of alleged undisclosed cash deposit on a protective basis, when protective additions are not permissible in reassessment proceedings, as per Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹6,93,59,900/- which cash allegedly belonged to Mr. Bark Biswas and was admitted by him, and also declared by him in his balance sheet? 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of interest of ₹9,12,342/- earned on bank deposit on a protective basis, when the said interest also belonged to Mr. Bark Biswas? Assessee's Contentions: - Protective additions are not allowed in reassessment proceedings. - The cash deposits and related interest belonged to Mr. Bark Biswas, who admitted ownership and declared it in his balance sheet. Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue strongly opposed the condoning of delay, arguing the reasons cited were not adequate and sufficient. (Note: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue regarding the merits of the addition itself, beyond opposing the delay condonation.)

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 131,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.1485/KOL/2025
ITA No. 1487/KOL/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

1.

These appeals are preferred by two different assessees’ against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi & Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 28.12.2023 & 30.03.2017 for the AY 2013-14.

3.

At the time of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee pressed ground nos.2,3 and 4 which are as under:-

2.

For that the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of alleged undisclosed cash deposit of ₹6,93,59,900/- on protective basis when no protective addition is allowed in reassessment proceedings.

3. For that the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Alleged undisclosed cash deposit of ₹6,93,59,900/- which cash belonged to Mr. Bark Biswas and was also admitted by him and so declared by him before the IT authorities in his balance sheet.

4. For that the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of interest of ₹9,12,342/- earned on bank deposit on protective basis when the said interest also belonged to Mr. Bark Biswas.” 3.1. The issue raised in ground no.2 and 3 is against the confirmation of addition of ₹6,93,59,900/- on account of cash deposit into the bank account of the assessee which belong to Barik Biswas who admitted the same as belonging to him.

3.2. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 18.03.2014, declaring total income of ₹8,98,140/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 23.07.2014. Later on, the AO received information that assessee had deposited cash into his bank

3.3. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal, when no one responded on the various dates of hearing.

ITA No. 1487/KOL/2025 ( TAPAN KUMAR PAL)

4.

The issue raised in this appeal is similar to one as decided by us in ITA No. 1485/KOL/2025. Accordingly, our decision would, mutatis mutandis, apply to this appeal of assessee in as well. Hence, the appeal of assessee is allowed.

5.

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessees’ are allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23.12.2025.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →