TIRTHA PRATIM BASU,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-61(3), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) to examine the details of cash deposits and withdrawals furnished by the assessee. The AO was directed to decide the issue afresh, considering the assessee's role as an entry provider and allowing set-off for commission income if offered for taxation.
What were the facts?
The assessee acted as an entry provider, receiving cash and returning it via cheque for a commission, which was offered as income. The lower authorities confirmed an addition of Rs. 54,66,400/- on account of unexplained cash credit.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition on account of unexplained cash credit is justified when the assessee claims to be an entry provider and has offered commission income. Whether proper set-off for offered income should be granted.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra
Assessment Year: 2015-16 Tirtha Pratim Basu ….... Appellant C-32, Rajdanga Nabapally, East Kolkata Township, Kolkata-700107. (PAN: AQEPB3036H) vs. ITO, Ward-61(3), Kolkata ........ Respondent Appearances by: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing :July 04, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order :October 03, 2024 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �याियक सद�य �ारा/ Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 22.01.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)” passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the lower authorities in making/confirming the addition of Rs.54,66,400/- on account of unexplained cash credit into the bank account of the assessee.
The assessee before the lower authorities pleaded that he was just an entry provider. The he received the cash from the beneficiary parties and returned the amount through cheque for certain commission. The assessee has already offered the commission amount of Rs.5,40,000/- as income of the assessee in the return filed u/s. 147/148 of the Act. The assessee in this respect has further pleaded that the AO while making impugned addition has even not given the set off of the aforesaid amount of Rs.5,40,000/-. However, both the lower authorities did not get satisfied with the aforesaid submissions of the assessee. It was observed that though the assessee had provided the names of the beneficiaries/parties who had got accommodation entries but neither their details nor the supporting documents have been filed.
Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee had duly explained before the lower authorities that the assessee had simply acted as an entry provider. That the bank statements of the assessee were available to the Assessing Officer (in shot “the AO”) from which it can be easily gathered that against the cash deposits cheques were issued to the different persons and that even the details of the beneficiaries/parties were provided. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, before us, has further furnished the summary of cash deposits and cash withdrawals as well as details of the cheques issued against cash deposit. These details, admittedly, were not filed before the lower authorities. In view of this, the matter is restored to the file of the AO with a direction to examine the details furnished by the assessee and thereafter, to decide the issue afresh. Needless to say that the AO may give proper opportunity to the assessee to present his case and thereafter, to decide the issue as to whether the assessee was an entry provider ? The AO is also directed to examine whether the assessee has already offered the amount of Rs.5,40,000/- for taxation if found so, then to give the credit/set off of the same accordingly to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026