SMT. SUSHILA DEBI JAIN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 43(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2440/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 October 2018AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no substance in the Revenue's argument that the assessee had not proven engagement in the milk business. The CIT(A)'s order, which accepted the taxpayer's details of milk sale/transportation business, was upheld.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order concerning an assessment year where the Assessing Officer treated a cash deposit of ₹65,45,808/- as unexplained turnover. The CIT(A) had accepted the assessee's explanation regarding the cash deposit being related to his milk business.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits made by the assessee were sufficiently explained as turnover from his milk business, and if the CIT(A) erred in not adding the entire amount.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “SMC” KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S, Godara

आदेश /O R D E R This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10, arises against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, Kolkata’s order dated 30.11.2017 passed in case No.79/CIT(A)-12/Kol./Wd.40(3)/2015-16 involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’.

2.

The Revenue’s sole grievance raised in the instant appeal seeks to revive the Assessing Officer’s action treating the assessee’s cash deposit in issue of ₹65,45,808/- as unexplained in the course of assessment to be his turnover liable for net profit estimation @ 8% only in the course of lower appellate proceedings.

3.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the Revenue’s vehement contention that assessee had nowhere proved to be engaged in milk business. It A.Y. 2009-10 ITO Wd-40(3),Kol. Vs. Dilip Kr. Dutta Page 2 emphasize therefore that CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in not adding the entire cash deposits in issue. I find no substance in instant sole argument. The CIT(A)’s detailed discussion in page 3 onwards in lower appellate order makes it clear that the instant taxpayer had filed sufficient details to have been carrying out milk sale / transportation business. The Revenue’s sole substantive argument in seeking to reviving the entire cash deposits addition carries no merit therefore.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →