KAJAL KUMARI SETH,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 45(2),, KOLKATA

Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 16.05.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre
[hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
2. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee's firm was engaged in manufacturing and trading mustard oils and mustard seeds etc. and the assessee had filed Income Tax Return for A.Y. 2014-
15 declaring total income of Rs.2,41,700/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under the Faceless Assessment Scheme and during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had unaccounted income of Rs.1,50,44,516/- from sundry creditors.
Subsequently, A notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax act, 1961 dated
Kajal Kumari Seth

2
28.08.2015 was issued along with various other notices and the assessee failed to give satisfactory reply to the Assessing Officer and accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment by passing order u/s.
143(3) of the Act by assessing total Income at Rs.1,52,86,216/- making an addition of Rs.1,50,44,516/- u/s 68 of the Act.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on the ground that the assessee could not provide satisfactory clarification nor there was any written submission or documentary evidence in support of the addition.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before us thereby submitting that the ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider that the said sum represents the opening balance of sundry creditors which was carried forward from earlier years with no fresh credits recorded to treat these brought-forward balances as income chargeable to tax in the assessment year 2014-15. The ld. AR further submits that the assessment order and appellate orders are bad in law as the additions was made on the basis of surmises, presumptions and suspicion.
5. Contrary to that, the ld. DR supports the impugned order.
6. Upon hearing the counsels of the respective parties and on perusal of the records, we find that the assessee is an individual and engaged in manufacturing and trading of mustard oils. We also find that before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted the list of sundry creditors mentioning seven parties from whom the assessee purchased various goods from time to time and payments were always made through account payee cheques through the assessee’s bank account with IDBI Bank, Kolkata.
We also find that the ld. AR submitted the following documents:
Kajal Kumari Seth

5
evidences before the Assessing Officer to substantiate the fact that the assessee did not make any payment during the relevant previous year to the parties and also the assessee has only made payment against opening balance. Keeping in view the above discussion, we do not find any justification for the addition of Rs.1,50,44,516/- u/s 68 of the Act and the same is hereby deleted.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Kolkata, the 14th November, 2025. [Rajesh Kumar]

[Pradip Kumar Choubey]
Accountant Member

Judicial Member

Dated: 14.11.2025. RS

Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. Appellant -
2. Respondent -
3. CIT(A)-
4. CIT- ,

////
By order