ITO, WD-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S S. P. T. SECURITIES LTD., KOLKATA
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the same turnover cannot be assessed in two hands. The factual findings of the CIT(A) were not controverted by the Revenue, and the addition made by the Assessing Officer lacked logic.
What were the facts?
The Revenue added a turnover of Rs. 7,84,60,000/- to the assessee company's income based on a statement from a sub-broker alleging fraudulent activities. The assessee contended that the turnover was already assessed in the hands of the sub-broker and that the statement was recorded under duress.
What were the issues?
Whether the same turnover can be taxed in the hands of both the assessee company and its sub-broker. Whether a statement recorded under duress can form the basis of an addition.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi]
Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Kolkata.…….…………………………………….…….……...Appellant P-7, Chowringee Square 8th Floor Kolkata – 700 069 M/s. S.P.T. Securities Ltd………………….………………………………..……………………..…. Respondent 11, Clive Row Kolkata – 700 001 [PAN : AADCS 8015 P] Appearances by: Shri Subhash Agarwal, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT, DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : January 10th, 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : January 31st, 2018
O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-
This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata, (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT (A)’), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 25/06/2015, for the Assessment Year 2008-09.
The assessee is a company and had filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2008-09 on 30/11/2008, declaring total income of Rs. 1,84,95,720/-. There was a survey in the premises of the company on 06/09/2007. Survey was also conducted at the premises of one Shri Narayan Chandra Roy, and statement u/s 131 of the Act, was recorded from him. In this statement, Sri Narayan Chandra Roy, allegedly stated that the Director of the assesse company Shri Surya Prakash Toshniwal, indulged in fraudulent activity of showing the 2 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. S.P.T. Securities Ltd company’s income as that of Shri Narayan Chandra Roy’s, by way of making false sub-brokership etc. taking advantage of his limited education, knowledge, bad financial position and innocent trust. Based on this statement, the turnover shown by Shri Narayan Chandra Roy, in his books was added as undisclosed turnover of the assesse company. Hence the sales of Rs.7,84,60,000/- was treated as undisclosed sale of the assessee company. The assessee submitted that the assessment in the case of Shri Narayan Chandra Roy was completed after the said survey and the turnover in question was assessed in his hands. The tax audit reports, final accounts and assessment papers of Shri Narayan Chandra Roy were submitted. He further submitted that Shri Narayan Chandra Roy, was a registered sub-broker and does transactions as a sub-broker. Shri Narayan Chandra Roy, was a sub-broker much prior to becoming the sub-broker of the assessee company. It was submitted by Shri Narayan Chandra Roy, that the statement was recorded from Shri Narayan Chandra Roy, under duress. An opportunity was asked by the assessee company to cross-examine Shri Narayan Chandra Roy. A copy of the STT statement disclosing business transacted by Shri Narayan Chandra Roy, was submitted and the assessee company had paid brokerage of Rs. 6,20,575.94/- to the assessee through Shri Narayan Chandra Roy on a business of Rs.9,74,671.17/-. The transactions of Shri Narayan Chandra Roy, were covered in the assessee company’s turnover and the company had issue valid contract notes to Shri Narayan Chandra Roy, and the transactions were settled to bank accounts. The ld. CIT(A) considered all these evidences and deleted the addition.
Aggrieved the revenue is before us in appeal.
After hearing rival submission, we find that Shri Narayan Chandra Roy, is a registered by SEBI, as a sub-broker in SPT Securities Limited and all the transactions are covered in the companies turnover. The Assessing Officer of Shri Narayan Chandra Roy, has assessed the turnover of Shri Narayan Chandra Roy, in the hands of Shri Narayan Chandra Roy. The factual findings of the ld. CIT(A) could not be controverted by the ld. D/R. The same turnover cannot be assessed in two hands. The addition made by the Assessing Officer does not stand to logic. Under
In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
More judgments on Section 131
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Nimit Agrawal, Raipur vs DCIT, Central Circle-1, RaipurITA 622/RPR/2026[2020-21]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Nimit Agrawal, Raipur vs DCIT, Central Circle-1, RaipurITA 621/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vikas Ashokkumar Masand, Ahmedabad vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3130/AHD/2026[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026