DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CNETRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DILIP KUMAR GHOSH, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1606/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 February 2026AY 2018-196 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found that the seized documents contained entries of cash receipts and payments that pertained to M/s. Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. and were duly accounted for in the company's books. These entries represented receipts from the sale of green leaves and payments to labour. The CIT(A) had made a clear finding to this effect. The Tribunal noted that M/s. Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. derives income from agricultural activity (growing and selling tea leaves), which is exempt under Section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since these cash receipts and payments were already booked in the company's accounts and related to agricultural activities, the addition made in the hands of the assessee was not justified. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which had deleted the addition. The Cross Objection filed by the assessee was dismissed as not pressed. The operative direction was to uphold the CIT(A)'s order, thereby deleting the addition.

What were the facts?

The appeals by the Revenue and the Cross Objection by the assessee, Dilip Kumar Ghosh, are against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2018-19. The Revenue's appeal challenges the deletion of an addition of ₹82,69,292/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for unexplained cash payments. The assessee's Cross Objection pertains to the same assessment year. The AO's addition was based on seized documents (DKG-01 and DKG-04) which allegedly contained unexplained money. The CIT(A) had deleted this addition. The Tribunal noted that a similar issue for Assessment Year 2017-18, involving the same documents and company (Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd.), was decided in favour of the assessee by a co-ordinate bench.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of ₹82,69,292/- made by the AO under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained cash payments, is justified, considering the material on record? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's contentions: - The seized documents (DKG-01 and DKG-04) contained entries pertaining to M/s. Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd., of which the assessee is a director. - These transactions were fully accounted for in the books of M/s. Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. - The entries in DKG-01 and JBTE-23 (another document) were repetitions of the same income and expenditure of the company. - The company derives income from growing and selling tea leaves, which is agricultural income exempt under Section 10(1) of the Act. - The AO failed to prove that the cash receipts were not from the sale of green tea leaves or that they represented unexplained income of the assessee. - Relied on 'Teena Bethla v. ITO' and 'DCIT v. Karthik Construction Co.' for the proposition that additions under Section 69A cannot be made for entries recorded in the assessee's books. - Relied on 'Tata Tea Ltd. & ANR. Etc. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Etc.' for the proposition that income from merely cultivating tea leaves is agricultural income. Revenue's contentions: - The Revenue argued that the addition was made correctly by the AO under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Act on account of unexplained cash payments, without appreciating the material brought on record by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 153A,Section 132,Section 10(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, AR
For Respondent: Shri Madhu Malti Ghosh, DR
Hearing: 03.02.2026Pronounced: 26.02.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.1606/KOL/2025
CO No. 94/KOL/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

These are the appeals preferred by the Revenue and CO by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)(hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 27.02.2025 for the AY 2018-19.

2.

At the outset, we observe from the appeal folder that there is a delay of 49 days in filing the appeal by the department in support of which

3.

The Revenue in this appeal has raised the issue of deletion of addition of ₹82,69,292/- as made by the ld. AO u/s 69A of the Act read with section 115BBE of the Act on account of unexplained cash payment without appreciating the material brought on record by the ld. AO whereas the assessee in its Cross Objection has challenged the order of ld. CIT (A) on various grounds.

4.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the issue in the instant appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case under similar facts in DCIT Vs. Dilip Kumar Ghosh in for A.Y. 2017-18, vide order dated 20.01.2026, wherein similar issue has been decided by the co- ordinate Bench in favour of the assessee. We note that the addition was made by the ld. AO on the basis of seized documents DKG-01 and DKG-04, by observing that cash payments as contained in those documents were unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. We note that the similar issue was also involved in the previous assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2017-18 based on the same document DKG-01 and DKG-04, which was deleted by the Tribunal by observing and holding as under:-

6.

Coming to the Cross Objection raised by the assessee, which is not pressed at the time of hearing and is dismissed as not pressed.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and CO of the Assessee are dismissed.

Order pronounced on 26.02.2026.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →