What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that only ₹3,55,000/- were actual deposits, with other sums being banking transfers. While rejecting the assessee's claim of no cash drawings, the Tribunal made a lump sum addition of ₹2,00,000/- as unexplained investment on estimation.

The assessee failed to disclose an Axis Bank account where deposits totaling ₹15,45,851/- were made. The lower authorities made an addition for unexplained investment based on these deposits.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the quantification of unexplained investment arising from deposits in an undisclosed bank account and the validity of the addition made by the lower authorities.

Pran Krishna Saha, Barasat vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “SMC” KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S, Godara

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata’s order dated 09.01.2018 passed in case No.196/CIT(A)-15/14-15/Wd-50(2)/Kol 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 challenges both the lower authorities’ action making unexplained income investment addition by way of deposits made in undisclosed bank account to the tune of ₹15,45,851/-. There is no dispute about the basic fact that the assessee had not disclosed his Axis Bank Ltd., in issue as admitted during the course of hearing. The question herein is that of quantification of the impugned addition to the pages 22 and 23 in the paper book indicate that the assessee had deposited total amount of ₹3,55,000/- only in the said undisclosed bank account

ITA No.1091/Kol/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 Pran Krishan Saha Vs. ITO Wd-50-(2) Kol. Page 2 and all other deposit sums are in the nature of banking transfer. Learned counsel’s case before me is that assessee had at his disposal no cash drawings of ₹4.77 lac i.e. much more than the cash deposits. I find no reason to accept the instant plea in toto as the said cash have to care of the entire family in the nature of household and other expenses. The assessee also not placed on record any cash statement in support thereof. I deem it appropriate in this facts and circumstances a lump sum addition of ₹2 lac out of ₹15,45,851/- to meet the ends of justice based on estimation with rider that same shall not be treated as precedent in any preceding or succeeding assessment years.

This assessee’s appeal is accepted for partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in open court on 16 /11/2018 (S.S. Godara) Judicial Member Kolkata, *Dkp/Sr.PS "दनांकः- 16/11/2018 कोलकाता आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant-Pran Krishna Saha, Srima Sarani, Krishnagar Road, Noapara P.O. Barasat,Kolkta-700124

""यथ"/Respondent-ITO, Ward-50(2) Uttarapan Complex, Ultadanga, Manicktala, Civic Cen. D.S.-II, 2nd Floor,Kolkata-54 3. संबं"धत आयकर आयु%त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु%त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. &वभागीय ")त)न"ध, आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गाड+ फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, // उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता ।

PRAN KRISHNA SAHA,BARASAT vs. ITO, WARD - 50(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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