BIMAL KUMAR DROLIA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-43(2), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 347/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 July 2025AY 2009-10Bench: SRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)19 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal confirmed the addition of the unexplained cash deposits to the assessee's income. The assessee failed to provide satisfactory documentary evidence for the source of the funds, and the contradictory statements further weakened his claim.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited a significant amount of cash (Rs. 58,14,000) into a bank account which was not disclosed in his income tax return. The assessee provided contradictory explanations for the source of these funds, initially claiming it was from sales but later stating it was operated by a CA for commission.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits in the bank account were adequately explained by the assessee, and if the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 148,Section 131

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(6)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY & SRI RAKESH MISHRA

order

: 18-July-2025 ORDER

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2009-10 dated 22.12.2023, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 147/143(3) of the Act, dated 10.11.2016.

2.

The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:

The appellant prey honours to kindly allow admission of following ground as additional ground. The ground was raised before Ld. CIT(A), NFAC also and otherwise in view of the Honourable Supreme Court order in the matter of NTPC vs CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383(SC) legal ground can be raised before appellate authority.

Notice under section 148 was served to the appellant on 02.04.2016, and since the notice is time barred the assessment proceedings carried out are without jurisdiction, bad in law and are liable to be quashed.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. Information regarding huge cash deposit in saving bank account No. 3185002100021034 of Punjab National Bank, Lenin Sarani Branch, Kolkata on different dates from 03.03.2009 to 13.03.2009, was received from D.D.I.T(Inv) Unit-2(3), Kolkata. The account is in the name of Sumon Enterprise, Prop. Bimal Kumar Drolia. Therefore, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 29.03.2016, requiring the assessee to submit a true and correct return of income. In response to this, the assessee requested to treat the earlier return filed as return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act dated 13.05.2016 and 06.09.2016, respectively along with several letters were also issued and served upon the assessee to prove with direct evidence the claim of cash deposits made out of sales. In response, the assessee filed only date-wise sales details in plain paper and did not substantiate it with documentary evidence, which was not accepted by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. Page 2 of 19 Page 6 of 19 Page 7 of 19 Page 10 of 19 Page 13 of 19 Page 14 of 19

8.

Ground No. 2 is general in nature and does not require any separate adjudication.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →