SRIKANTA PRADHAN,ANADIPUR, CHHENDIPADA vs. ITO ANUGUL WARD, ANUGUL, ANUGUL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the SBN deposit cannot be treated as undisclosed income as it was part of the disclosed turnover and shown in the bank account. However, the assessee could not prove that the 8% presumptive income estimation was erroneous, thus confirming the addition on that basis.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in trading eggs and potatoes, had a turnover of Rs. 28,80,000. During demonetization, Rs. 15,80,000 was deposited in the bank account, of which Rs. 15,05,000 was in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs). The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 15,05,000 and estimated income at 8% of the turnover.
What were the issues?
Whether the deposit of SBNs during demonetization can be treated as undisclosed income, and whether the 8% presumptive income estimation is valid for perishable commodities.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
Assessee represented by Shri K.K. Bal, A.R. Department represented by Shri Sanjib Banerjee, Sr.DR Date of hearing 25/02/2026 Date of pronouncement 25/02/2026 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2/10366/2019-20 dated 27/02/2025 for the A.Y. 2017-18.
Shri K.K. Bal, ld. A.R. appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sanjib Banerjee, Sr.DR represented on behalf of the revenue.
It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee drives income from trading in eggs and potatoes. It was the submission that the assessee does his business in the village area. It was the submission that the total turnover of the assessee was Rs. 28,80,000/-. The Assessing Officer considered the bank account of the assessee and found that the assessee had deposited Rs. 15,80,000/- during the demonetization Srikanta Pradhan Vs ITO period, out of which Rs. 15,05,000/- were deposited in the form of Specified Bank Notes (SBN). It was the submission that the said amount was part of the business turnover of the assessee and the business income of the assessee has been estimated at 8% of the turnover after deleting the addition made of Rs. 15,05,000/-. It was the submission that the entire business turnover of the assessee is in cash because the transactions is purchase and sale of eggs and potatoes. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer has also applied 8% presumptive tax. It was the prayer that the eggs and potatoes are perishable commodities and the assessee having once sold the perishable commodity, the assessee is bound to take whatever currency the customer provides, failing which he would lose the entire sale proceeds itself. It was the prayer that the addition as made by the Assessing Officer may be deleted.
In reply, ld. Sr.DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions. Perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the assessee is deriving income from trading in eggs and potatoes which are admittedly the perishable items. No variation in the turnover has been found. The assessment has been done only on the ground that there is substantial deposit of SBN in the bank account maintained by the assessee. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer also admits that the turnover of the assessee is Rs. 28,80,000/-.
Srikanta Pradhan Vs ITO The assessee’s sale receipts are consisting of the SBN, obviously, the same cannot be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee specially when it has been shown in the bank account of the assessee and the assessee is not required to maintain books of account and the Assessing Officer has also accepted the fact that the turnover of the assessee is fully disclosed in the bank account at Rs. 28,80,000/-. This being so, the addition made by the Assessing Officer to the extent of Rs. 15,05,000/- representing the SBN deposited in the bank account stands deleted.
Admittedly, the assessee has not been able to produce any evidence to show that the estimation of income at 8% is erroneous. This being so, the addition as made by the Assessing Officer in regard to business income on the presumptive rate of 8% stands confirmed. It is also mentioned here that as the addition of Rs. 15,05,000/- has been deleted, 8% would have been applied on the entire turnover. To that extent, the Assessing Officer is directed to modify in the order.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 25/02/2026.
More judgments on Section 43B
- Vco Consulatatns and Sevices Private… vs ITO, Corporate Ward 3(3), ChennaiITA 2145/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Private… vs The Dy CIT Circle 8(2)(1), MumbaiITA 8020/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Amritvarsha Industries Limited, Ambedkar… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 6481/DEL/2026[2010-2011]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2010-2011
- Karaj Singh, Haryana vs PCIT (Central) Gurgaon, GurgaonITA 642/CHANDI/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- ACIT, Mumbai vs Imp Powers Limited, MumbaiITA 4982/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Jsw Cement Limited,Jajpur vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sreeshobi Enterprises vs. The Appellate AuthorityMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- S.T.Promotors vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- Prashanti Das (M/S. Panchamukhi Enterprises) vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Jagatsinghpur CircleOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
