DIPYAMAN DUTT,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-7(1), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that once an assessee opts for the presumptive taxation scheme under Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, no further additions can be made to the income. The assessee is engaged in the catering business and filed the return under Section 44AD, disclosing a profit rate of 8% on gross receipts. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the return was filed on a presumptive basis and that the assessee was engaged in a business with a proper trade license. The addition made by the AO and partly sustained by the CIT(A) was considered unreasonable. The Tribunal relied on the Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in CIT-II vs. Surinder Pal Anand, which held that if income is shown at 8% under Section 44AD, there is no obligation to explain each cash deposit. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Dipyaman Dutt, filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2014-15 on 12.02.2014. The case was selected for scrutiny. During the year, the assessee deposited ₹68,00,000/- in his bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) added this entire amount to the assessee's income, stating the assessee could not satisfactorily explain the source. The assessee is engaged in the catering business, holding a trade license from Kolkata Municipal Corporation, and filed his return under Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act. The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (CIT(A)) partly allowed the appeal, deleting an addition of ₹31,37,470/-. The assessee is aggrieved by the confirmation of the remaining addition.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the addition of cash deposits to the income of the assessee is justified when the assessee has opted for the presumptive taxation scheme under Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that having filed the return under Section 44AD, offering income on a presumptive basis, the AO and CIT(A) erred in making additions. The money was received in the ordinary course of business. The CIT(A) incorrectly deleted only ₹31,37,470/- based on debit entries, overlooking the presumptive nature of the return. The assessee relied on the decision in CIT-II vs. Surinder Pal Anand (2010) for the proposition that no further explanation of cash deposits is required under Section 44AD. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the Revenue before the Tribunal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 19.11.2025 for the AY 2014-15.
The only issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal is against the confirmation of addition of ₹36,62,530/- by the ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO in respect of cash deposits during the year.
The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 12.02.2014, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, along with questionnaire were duly issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee furnished before the ld. AO all the details and information as called for. During the year the assessee deposited cash of ₹68 lacs in his bank account. Accordingly,
In the appellate proceedings lde. CIT(A) after taking into account the evidences and submissions of the assessee , partly allowed the appeal by deleting the addition to the tune of ₹ 31,37,470/-.
After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee is running a catering business under trade license in the name of CRUMBILICIOUS-DIPYAMAN DUTT No. 0062576 for F.Y. 2013-14 dated 17.06.2023. During the year, the assessee disclosed total turnover of ₹65,68,500/- and returned a profit of ₹5,56,133/- u/s 44AD of the Act on presumptive basis. The assessee is not maintaining any books of accounts. The ld. CIT (A) has allowed the relief to the assessee only to the extent of debit entries in the bank account of the assessee, however, the ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee has filed the return of income on presumptive basis and this is also undisputed that the assessee is engaged in the business of catering etc. under proper trade license issued by Municipal Corporation, Kolkata. The assessee submitted before us that the money was received from the business in the ordinary course of business and therefore, the ld. CIT (A) has not appreciated the fact correctly and only deleted the addition to the tune of ₹31,37,470/- based upon debit entries in the bank account as against the total disallowance and addition made by the ld. AO of ₹68
In our opinion, once the assessee has opted the presumptive scheme and offered the income u/s 44AD of the Act, no other addition can be made. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Courtin case of Commissioner of Income- tax-II vs. Surinder Pal Anand [2010] 192 Taxman 264 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2011] 242 CTR 61 (Punjab & Haryana)[29-06-2010], wherein it has been held that once the assessee has shown the income at the rate of 8% u/s 44AD of the Act then there is no obligation to explain each and every entry of cash deposit in the bank account. We also note that the addition has been made by the ld. AO merely on the ground that there was non-compliance on the part of the assessee. Under these circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the order of the ld. CIT (A) and direct the ld. AO to delete the addition.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17.02.2026.
More judgments on Section 44AD
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Rangoli Hotel, Mehsana vs DCIT, Circle, Gandhinagar, GandhiangarITA 2286/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 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
- Sonu Jain, Agra vs ITO WD(1)(1)(2), AgraITA 671/AGR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sarvjeet Singh Through Legal Heir Manjit… vs ITO Ward 1(1), AlwarITA 355/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026