MOHAMMAD NAUSHAD,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 32(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF

ITA 900/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 November 2025AY 2016-17Bench: the Tribunal has arisen. It has also been submitted by the assessee that the delay is neither deliberate nor intention but occurred due to circumstances beyond his control and prayed for condonation of delay. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR has also not objected to condone the delay. In view of the above and considering the contention of the assessee stated in the affidavit, the delay of 56 days in filing the present appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The assessee's appeal, filed with a 56-day delay, was condoned. The Assessing Officer (AO) identified significant unexplained cash deposits totaling Rs. 1,06,92,140/- in the assessee's bank accounts, which substantially exceeded the gross receipts of Rs. 44,55,200/- declared under Section 44AB. As the assessee failed to explain these deposits, the AO treated the difference as undisclosed income and estimated it at 13.66%, subsequently reduced to 8% by the CIT(A).

Held

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not provided an explanation for the cash deposits in the bank account. Therefore, it restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, instructing that the assessee be given adequate opportunity of being heard and cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings.

Key Issues

Whether unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts can be treated as undisclosed income or business receipts, and if the assessee is entitled to a further opportunity to explain these deposits before the AO.

Sections Cited

139(1), 44AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY

Hearing: 15/10/2025Pronounced: 21/11/2025

(नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Mohammad Naushad, Vs ITO Ward-32(1), Kolkata 10 Waliullah Lane, Taltala, Kolkata-700016 PAN No. :AFBPN 5492 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Ajay Tiwari, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Sima Das Biswas, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 21/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-8, Mumbai, dated 17.12.2024 passed for Assessment Year 2016-2017.

At the outset, on perusal of the appeal record, it is found that the appeal of the assessee has been filed belatedly by 56 days. The assessee has filed condonation application supported with affidavit for condonation of delay stating therein that the order of the ld. CIT(A) was communicated belatedly for which delay of 56 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal has arisen. It has also been submitted by the assessee that the delay is neither deliberate nor intention but occurred due to circumstances beyond his control and prayed for condonation of delay. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR has also not objected to condone the delay. In view of the above and considering to the contention of the 2 assessee stated in the affidavit, the delay of 56 days in filing the present appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

The sole issue involved in the present appeal of the assessee is with regard to treatment of entire credits in bank accounts as business receipts/turnover of the assessee by both the authorities below.

Ld. AR during the course of hearing submitted that the assessee is an individual and the return filed by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny on account of large cash deposited in his savings bank account. Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee had total deposits of nearly Rs.1,51,25,841/- in his four bank accounts, this included cash and NEFT and cheque deposits. Out of the said deposits, the cash deposits were of Rs.1,06,92,140/-. Rs.44,33,701/- was the NEFT, cheque deposits and ATM withdrawals. Consequently the AO had asked the assessee to explain the cash deposits of Rs.1,06,92,140/-. The assessee had not responded the same. Accordingly the AO had taken into consideration of the fact that the assessee had filed his return u/s.139(1) of the Act and had filed his return disclosing an income u/s.44AB of the Act. In the return filed u/s.44AB of the Act, the gross receipts was shown at Rs.44,55,200/-. As the assessee had been unable to explain the difference between the business turnover disclosed at Rs.44,55,000/- and the total deposits of Rs.1,51,25,841/-, the AO treated Rs.1,06,70,641/- as the undisclosed income of the assessee. The AO had treated the same as turnover of the assessed and estimated income at 13.66%. Ld.AR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) had reduced the estimation to 8%. It was submitted by the ld.AR 3 that the assessee is in a position to disclose every entry in the books of account and, therefore, ld. AR prayed that the assessee may be given another opportunity to substantiate its claim before the AO.