Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an ITR for AY 2013-14 with a declared income of Rs.70,440/-. The case was reopened under Section 147/148 for an alleged transfer of Rs.8,00,056/- from M/s Purayita Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. to the assessee's bank account, which the AO treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the sum pertained to a prior financial year (2011-12) and not the assessment year in question.
Held
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, concluding that the sum of Rs.8,00,056/- was an advance received during FY 2011-12 and its addition in the current assessment year (2013-14) was not justified. Consequently, the reopening of the assessment was deemed bad in law as the issue did not relate to the assessment year under consideration.
Key Issues
1. Whether an addition under Section 68 for an amount received in a prior financial year can be sustained in the current assessment year. 2. Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 is valid when the alleged income pertains to a different assessment year.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(2), 142(1), 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthi
Assessment Year: 2013-14 DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), Kolkata ………………...………………..….……….Appellant vs. Trinity Vintrade Pvt. Ltd.………..........................…….........……...…..…..Respondent 2nd Floor, Room no.22, 22 Canning street, Kol-1. [PAN: AADCT2156P] Appearances by: Smt. Sima Das Biswas, JCIT, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : August 11, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : August 11, 2025 ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 26.12.2024 for the Assessment Year 2013–14.
At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 69 days in filing the present appeal. The revenue has filed a petition for condonation of delay citing reasonable cause for the belated filing. We, after considering the submissions and materials on record, satisfy that the revenue was prevented by reasonable cause in filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Accordingly, the delay is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2013–14 by declaring total income of Rs.70,440/-. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act for the reason that a sum of Rs.8,00,056/- was transferred from one M/s Purayita Vanija Pvt. Ltd. to the assessee’s bank account during the year and found that the alleged Trinity Vintrade Pvt. Ltd company was among the paper/jamakharchi companies. In response to notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee furnished returns and objections of the assessee were recorded. Further notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and the assessee furnished various details and explanation for the source of the amount credited in bank account and ultimately after considering all the documents, the Assessing Officer treated Rs.8,00,056/- u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit and added the same in the hands of the assessee.
Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), where the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
Dissatisfied with the above order, the revenue is in appeal before this tribunal stating that order passed by the CIT(A) is bad in law and liable to be set aside as the assessee failed to establish identity and creditworthiness of M/s Purayita Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. and the genuineness of the transaction of Rs.8,00,056/-.
On the other hand, the learned AR objected to the above prayer made by the ld. DR stating that the present issue had heard extensively by the ld. CIT(A) during appellate proceedings and the ld. CIT(A) has elaborately discussed the issue in his order and the CIT(A) in his order has clearly stated that the alleged sum of Rs.8,00,056/- was received by the assessee in the previous year i.e. on or before 31.03.2012 and does not relate to the present assessment year in question. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment was bad in law since the issue is not relating to the assessment year in question and in para no.6.3, the ld. CIT(A) has clearly mentioned the said fact which is as under:
“6.3 The argument of the appellant is that the amount received only settled an advance that existed in the books at the beginning of the previous year. And that the original advance had been given in a preceding year. The relevant part of the balance sheet is extracted below: As at 31.3.2011 As at 31.03.2012 As at 2
We have heard both sides and perused the material on record. We find that in the present case, a sum of Rs.8,00,056/- was advance during the F.Y 2011-12 which is clearly reflected from the order of the CIT(A) in para 6.3, therefore, the question of making addition in the current year which is relating to the earlier year’s advance, cannot be held to be justified. Therefore, we find that the ld. CIT(A) rightly allowed the appeal of the assessee by setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer and also we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the revenue.
In terms of above, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Kolkata, the 11th August, 2025.