SONA KUMAR SHOW,HOOGHLY vs. A.T.I.T.,WARD-23(1), HOOGHLY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 93/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 November 2019AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not establish a clear nexus between sales and deposits, and the Revenue did not fully rebut the sales figures. Therefore, the addition was restricted to a lump sum of ₹50,000/-.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed a miscellaneous application to recall an earlier order, which was allowed. The main appeal concerned an addition of ₹12,97,900/- representing the peak credit in the assessee's undisclosed bank account, against total sales of ₹2.28 crores.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made on account of peak credit in an undisclosed bank account is justified, considering the sales figures provided by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “SMC” KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S, Godara

Heard together (2 matters)

M.ANo.192/Kol/2019
ITA No.93/Kol/2019

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

MA No.192/Kol/2019 & ACIT Wd-23(1), Hgy. Vs. Sona Kr. Show Page 2 आदेश /O R D E R This Revenue’s miscellaneous petition filed u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’ seeks to re-call / rectify the tribunal’s order dated 28.06.2019 allowing the main appeal on the pretext that the sole issue involved in the main lis was that of bogus Long Term Capital Gains. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It transpires during the course of hearing that the tribunal’s order has erred in treating the main appeal to be involving only bogus LTCG issue since the same nowhere emanates from the case file. Both the learned representatives are ad idem to this effect. I therefore re-call the tribunal’s order dated 26.06.2019 for this precise reason alone. This Revenue’s miscellaneous application MA No.192/Kol/2019 is allowed.

3.

With the consent of both the parties, I now proceed to take up assessee’s appeal Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) have added an amount of ₹12,97,900/- pertaining to peak credit in assessee’s undisclosed bank account involving 75 lac deposits. Mr. Ghosh invites my attention to page 7 and 49 of the paper book indicating the assessee’s total deposits in the relevant previous year of ₹2.28 crores as against the total sales of ₹26,016,520/- as per his audited balance-sheet. His case therefore is that assessee undisclosed deposits have come from the said sales amount only. The Revenue on the other hand strongly supports both the lower authorities action under challenge adding peak credit in issue of ₹12,97,900/-.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →