What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue of ₹5,79,307 to the Assessing Officer for factual verification. The balance addition of ₹4,20,693 was affirmed as undisclosed income.

The assessee challenged an addition of ₹10 lakh as undisclosed income. The assessee argued that ₹5,79,307 of this amount was already disclosed as business turnover.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits can be treated as undisclosed income when a portion is claimed as disclosed business turnover, requiring factual verification.

Ganesh Chandra Sadhu, Nadia vs ACIT | ITAT Kolkata 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “SMC” KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S, Godara

आदेश /O R D E R This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, arises against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, Kolkata’s order dated 01.08.2018 passed in case No.10191/CIT(A)-12/Kol/2017-18, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

The assessee’s sole substantive ground seeks to challenge both the lower authorities’ action adding entire cash deposits of ₹10 lac to be undisclosed income. Mr.Roy’s only argument during the course of hearing is that an amount of ₹5,79,307/- out of ₹ 10 lac in issue already stood disclosed as business turnover. Mr. Singh’s case before me on the other hand is that this latter plea of turnover disclosure requires factual verification. I therefore restore the assessee’s instant latter argument claiming Ganesh Ch. Sadhu Vs. ACIT, Cir-41, Nadia Page 2 ₹5,79,307/- as business turnover to the Assessing Officer for factual verification and affirm the balance addition of ₹4,20,693/- out of ₹ 10 lac as undisclosed income.

GANESH CHANDRA SADHU,NADIA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 41, NADIA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments