Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)] (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] in appeal no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081218135(1) dated 26.09.2025 for the AY 2017-18.
Shri Soumitra Choudhury and P Sarkar, represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.
It was the submission that there was no variation in the cash deposit status for each of the years or for the specified periods. The ld. AR also drew our attention to page nos. 682 and 683 of the Paper Book, which is a copy of the cash book beyond the period of demonetization reads as follows:-
Blank
In reply, the ld. Sr. Departmental Representative submitted that the amount of ₹3,45,00,450/- was the figure shown in the ITS portal. It was the submission that there could have been duplication and the AO might have taken the corrected figure at ₹1,48,53,500/-. It was the submission that this could be verified if at all. It was the further submission by the ld. Sr. DR drew our attention to page no. 294 of the Paper Book, which read as follows:-
Blank
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the ledger of the assessee shows that the date has shown in page no.294 by the ld. AR is 09.09.2016, this is much before the demonetization period. Further, the ledger is similar to the ledger entries of the earlier and subsequent period. This is not being indication that there has been manipulation in the accounts. It is also not the case of the AO that there has been manipulation of the accounts. In case of the AO this is regard to addition made under section 68 of the Act in respect of cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee during the demonetization period. The perusal of the cash book maintained by the assessee shows that the cash has been deposited in the bank of the assessee out of the cash available in the cash book. The deposits are not amounts which has been deposited in the cash book. A perusal of the comparative chart for the three assessment years also clearly shows that the cash deposits are substantially consistent. This being so, as the cash has been deposited by the assessee out of the cash book of the assessee and no error has been found in the said cash book or in the stock book maintained by the assessee, we are of the view that the addition made by the ld. AO and as enhanced by the ld. CIT (A) is unsustainable and the same stands deleted.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27.01.2026.