NRIPENDRA KUMAR GHOSH,GOALPARA vs. ITO, GOALPARA

The present appeal arises from the order under Section 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Central (NER). [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 30.04.2025. 1.1 In this case, a survey u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on the assessee. During the said survey the assessee had declared Rs. 5 lacs as undisclosed cash, which was later on retracted. Thereafter, the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 3,42,991/- u/s 69A of the Act, and several other additions.

That the Ld. AO has erred both in law and on facts in treating the sum of Rs 10,00,000/- voluntarily disclosed by the assessee during survey as "undisclosed income" under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the fact that the assessee has subsequently paid due taxes on the same, the disclosure was not corroborated by any incriminating document OR third-party confirmation, and the nature of the asset (debtors) does not qualify as unexplained money under section 69.

The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs 3,56,798/- under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging that the said amount represents excess cash paid to M/s Sikdar Enterprise which was either not recorded in the assessee's cash book OR recorded at a lower amount.” 2.2 Before us, the Ld. AR argued that due to a communication gap between the assessee and his tax consultant no compliance could be made before the Ld. CIT(A). It was pleaded that one more chance may be given to present the facts before the Ld. CIT(A).

We have heard both the Ld. AR/DR and perused the records. It is felt that in the interests of natural justice, the assessee deserves a second chance to present the facts before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the same back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 2 Nripendra Kumar Ghosh 4. In result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.