TAPAN KUMAR PAL,SANGRAMPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 49(1),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1487/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 December 2025AY 2013-2014Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the additions made to the assessees' income on a protective basis were not justified. Since Mr. Bark Biswas admitted ownership of the cash deposits and these were accounted for in his business, the protective addition in the hands of the employees was deleted.

What were the facts?

Two assessees, employees of Mr. Bark Biswas, challenged additions made to their income concerning large cash deposits in their bank accounts. The deposits and transactions were allegedly conducted by their employer, Mr. Bark Biswas, who admitted to owning the funds.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of cash deposits and interest on a protective basis to the employee-assessees' income is justified when the employer admitted ownership and conducted the transactions.

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

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AR
For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha
Hearing: 08.12.2025Pronounced: 23.12.2025
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 →