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

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

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

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.

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

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.

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