PRAFULLA KUMAR MALAKAR, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KALAWATI INVESTMENTS & TRADING P LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 134/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 February 2026AY 2015-16Bench: or at the time of hearting of this1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming that the AO failed to provide any evidence to prove the transactions were fictitious. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 79,04,700/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of unexplained investment. The AO had initiated reassessment proceedings based on information from the Investigation Wing ('Project Falcon') alleging fictitious derivative transactions by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in derivative transactions was justified without sufficient evidence, and whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 147,Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(10)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 AT KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the Revenue 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 2015-16 dated 18.11.2024. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.79,04,700/-. 2.The CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deciding the case in favour of the assessee ignoring the findings/observation of the AO in respect of derivative/currency transactions made by

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →