SHRI AMARJIT SINGH,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-34(2), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee's contention regarding inter-account transfers needed verification. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for re-examination of the source of deposits in the savings bank account.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 13.67 lakhs to the assessee's income as unexplained credits in the savings bank account, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee claimed the amount was transferred between his own savings and current accounts.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of unexplained credits without properly verifying the assessee's explanation of inter-account transfers.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA,
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg
आदेश /O R D E R The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 29th November, 2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 10, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’]. 2. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice. It is further observed from the very date of filing of the present appeal no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee. In view of this, I proceed to decide the appeal ex parte qua the assessee after hearing the Ld. DR.
The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal :-
1. For that the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding undisclosed income u/ s 68 of income tax Act. This addition is unjustified and uncalled for and hence the same be deleted.
Sri Amarjit Singh Page 2 2. For that the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in relying in irrelevant that the amount is cash transaction. All transaction are Bank transaction transferred from saving bank account of the Assessee to its current bank account of the Assessee and also current bank account of the Asseessee to the saving bank account of the Asseessee 3. The learned CIT (Appeal) has in its order mention about demonetization period of 8th November to 31st December 2016 but our financial year is 1st April 2014 to 31st March 2015 which much earlier and not related to that period.
The learned A.O. was provided with list of sundry debtors and sundry creditors and it was verified by A.O. sending notice ujs133(6) so the contention of learned CIT (Appeal) is not correct.
The appellant craves leave to press new, additional grounds of appeal
or modify, withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal.
4. The sole issue in this appeal through the above grounds of appeal is relating to addition of Rs. 13.67 lakhs made by the Learned Assessing Officer ( in short, the Ld. AO) into the income of the assessee on account of unexplained credits in the saving bank account of the assessee.
5. During the assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO, inter-alia noticed that certain amounts were credited into current account of the assessee, the aggregate of which was more than the entire figure of sales turnover of the assessee. The assessee submitted his explanation in this respect. However, the Ld. AO noticed that the amount of Rs.13.67 lakhs was credited from the saving bank account of the assessee to his current account. That, the assessee could not disclose source of deposit of aforesaid amount of Rs. 13.67 lakhs in his saving bank account. He, therefore, treated the said amount as income from undisclosed source and added the same into the income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘Act’) . The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition so made by the Ld. AO.
6. I have heard the Learned Departmental Representative ( in short, the Ld. DR) and have also gone through the record. The main contention of the assessee as stated in the statements of facts as well as grounds of appeal is that’s the assessee has one current account and one saving bank account. It has been pleaded that amount of Rs. 16.69 lakhs was earlier transferred from the current account of the assessee to the
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026