What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee provided documentary evidence of share sales, her explanation for the source of the impugned deposits was not sufficiently discharged. Therefore, the additions were restricted to 30%.

The assessee, a salaried individual, sold her stock holdings in shares in two assessment years. The lower authorities added the sale proceeds as undisclosed income, stating the assessee failed to prove the source.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee sufficiently proved the source of income from share sales, and if not, what should be the quantum of addition.

Neha Chowdhary, Howrah vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2020

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “SMC” KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S, Godara

These assessee’s two appeal(s) for assessment years 2014-15 & 2015-16, arise against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata’s separate orders; both dated 16.05.2019 passed in case Nos.CIT(A), Kolkata-14/10571/2016-17 and citia,Kolkat-14/10109/2017-18, respectively involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

The assessee’s identical sole grievance canvassed in these two appeals seeks to reverse both the lower authorities adding the alleged undisclosed income of ₹17,88,666/- and ₹16,53,772/- respectively. Learned counsel’s only grievance during the course of hearing is that the assessee is a salaried person who was sold her stock holding in shares in the relevant two previous years. Mr. Tiwari also sought to emphasise that assessee has filed all necessary evidence before the lower authorities as well. The Revenue’s case on the other hand is that the impugned sums have been ITA No.1790-91/Kol/2019 A.Ys.2014-15 & 2015-16 Neha Chowdhary Vs. ITO Wd-46(3), Kol. Page 2 rightly treated as unexplained income since assessee could not prove source thereof during the course of scrutiny as well as in the lower appellate proceedings.

I have heard rival contentions against and in support of both the parties. It emerges that from a perusal of these case files that although the assessee has produced her documentary evidence before the lower authorities about the impugned sums to be in the nature of income derived from the sales of shares, the fact remains that her detailed explanation tendered in the course of assessment till date does not sufficiently discharg her onus on proving the source of impugned deposits. I therefore deem it appropriate in these peculiar facts and circumstances that the impugned addition(s) of ₹17,88,666/- and ₹16,53,772/- deserved to be restricted to that @ 30% only with a rider that same shall not be treated as a precedent in any other assessment year. The assessee gets part relief accordingly. Necessary computation to follow as per law.

These assessee’s two appeals are partly allowed in above terms. A copy of the instant common order be placed in respective case files. Order pronounced in open court on 14/02/2020 (S.S. Godara) Judicial Member Kolkata, *Dkp/Sr.PS "दनांकः- 14/02/2020 कोलकाता आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant-Neha Cgiwdgart, 295, G.T.Road, Belur, Howrah-711202

""यथ"/Respondent-ITO Ward-46(3),3, Govt. Place (West), Kolkata-700 071 3. संबं"धत आयकर आयु%त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु%त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. &वभागीय ")त)न"ध, आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गाड+ फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, // सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता ।

NEHA CHOWDHARY,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 46(3), KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments