REKHA SAHA,RAIGANJ vs. ACIT, CC-2(4), KOLKATA
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The present appeals are directed at the instance of the assessee against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 26, Kolkata, (hereinafter the “ld. CIT(A)”) dt. 27/12/2023 for Assessment Year 2015-16 and 28/12/2023 for Assessment Year 2016- 17, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”).
Though the assessee has raised various grounds of appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 and 2016-17 but the grievance of the assessee
2 I.T.(SS).A. 26/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 I.T.A. 585/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rekha Saha only revolves around the addition made for unexplained deposit in the post office account at Rs. 4,08,014/- for Assessment Year 2015-16 and Rs.6,35,990/- for Assessment Year 2016-17, respectively.
At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment orders have been framed u/s 153C of the Act and search was carried out in the case of the assessee’s husband and in the assessment framed for Assessment Year 2010-11, u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dt. 18/12/2017, the addition for enhanced cash in hand was made at Rs. 18,64,800/-. He submitted that against such addition for enhanced cash in hand, the assessee deserves telescoping benefit in the subsequent year for the alleged deposit in post office account. On the other hand, the ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the orders of the lower authorities. He also submitted that assessment order for Assessment Year 2010-11 has subsequently been annulled by the ld. CIT(A) on the ground of limitation.
We have heard rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. We fail to find any merit in both the appeals of the assessee for the reason that assessee has claimed telescoping benefit against the addition of cash in hand for Assessment Year 2010-11. However, this plea of the assessee is incorrect because, the assessee has never declared the cash in hand of Rs.18,64,800/- in the return for Assessment Year 2010-11 furnished in compliance to notice u/s 153C of the Act. The additions were made by the Assessing Officer but the assessment order was subsequently quashed by the ld. CIT(A) on the ground of limitation period. Therefore, the assessee has neither offered
3 I.T.(SS).A. 26/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 I.T.A. 585/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rekha Saha cash in hand in its return nor has been subjected to any tax on such addition of cash in hand of Rs.18,64,800/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer. Therefore, the assessee deserves no telescoping benefit for the deposits made in the post office bank account. Since the assessee has miserably failed to explain the source of deposits in its post office accounts before both the lower authorities and before us, no interference in called for in the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and the impugned additions deserve to be confirmed. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 24th June, 2024 at Kolkata. (SONJOY SARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kolkata, Dated 24/06/2024 *SC SrPs आदेश क" "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Assessee
""यथ" / The Respondent 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयु" अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, कोलकाता/DR,ITAT, Kolkata, 6. गाड" फाई/ Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
