← All Phrases

“Section 139(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 139Section 139(1)7,818 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 139(1) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 139(1)

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,673
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.
321 ITR 508 · 2010 · High Court
1,629
citing judgments

Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · Supreme Court
1,392
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can be made during processing under section 143(1).

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
366 ITR 170 · 2014 · High Court
1,158
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund, are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare statutes, even by a single day. Such delayed deposits are not cured even if made before the income-tax return filing due date.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders
349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court
956
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court
791
citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

Judgments citing Section 139(1)

Anupam Industries Limited, Anand vs. The ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1882/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

under section 43B as statutory dues not paid on or before the due date under section 139(1) of the Act. The AO further added Rs. 48,33,282/- under section 2(24)(x) of the Act for delayed deposit of employees’ PF contribution, relying on the decision

Anupam Industries Limited, Anand vs. The ACIT, Ananad Circle, Anand

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 982/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

under section 43B as statutory dues not paid on or before the due date under section 139(1) of the Act. The AO further added Rs. 48,33,282/- under section 2(24)(x) of the Act for delayed deposit of employees’ PF contribution, relying on the decision

Anupam Industries Limited, Anand vs. The ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 981/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

under section 43B as statutory dues not paid on or before the due date under section 139(1) of the Act. The AO further added Rs. 48,33,282/- under section 2(24)(x) of the Act for delayed deposit of employees’ PF contribution, relying on the decision

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Anand Circle, Anand vs. Anupam Industries Limited, Anand

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1015/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

under section 43B as statutory dues not paid on or before the due date under section 139(1) of the Act. The AO further added Rs. 48,33,282/- under section 2(24)(x) of the Act for delayed deposit of employees’ PF contribution, relying on the decision

Src Projects Pvt. Ltd., Salem vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Salem

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2358/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2358/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S. Src Projects Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, 4-B, Lakshmipuram, Circle-(1), Gandhi Road, Salem-636 007. Salem. [Pan: Aagcs 3528 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Krishna Murthy AT, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

assessee beyond the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts, but before the due date of filing of the return of income under Section 139 (1) of the Act of 1961, could be held as the income of the appellant/assessee under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section ... PF/ESI deposited beyond the due dates under the respective Acts but before the due date of filing the return of income under section 139(1). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [(2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC)] has categorically held that: “Employees’ contribution to PF/ESI

Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bilaspur vs. Baldev Prasad Patel, Mungli

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 646/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Raipur14 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.646/Rpr/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Sharma & Shri VivekFor Respondent: Ms. Manisha Kinnu, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE

Kulathumkuzhiyil Muhammed Ashraf, Kottayam vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Kottayam, Kottayam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 622/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Years: 2018-19 Kulathumkuzhiyil Muhammed Ashraf .......... Appellant Kulathumkuzhiyil, Velloor, Kottayam 686501 [Pan: Bzvpa6849J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2, Kottayam .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Prashanth Srinivas, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.06.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. No Regular Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Act Was Filed For Ay 2018-19. Based On The Information That The Appellant Received Interest Income From United India Insurance Company Ltd. Or Rs. 29,03,429/- During The Previous Year Relevant To Assessment Year Under Consideration, The Ao Formed An Opinion That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax. Accordingly, A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Issued On 2 Kulathumkuzhiyil Muhammed Ashraf 31.03.2022. The Appellant Neither Complied With The Notice U/S. 148 Nor U/S. 142(1) Of The Act Issued By The Ao Calling For Certain Information. In The Circumstances, The Ao Was Constrained To Pass Best Judgement Assessment By Bringing To Tax The Interest Income Of Rs. 29,03,429/- As Unexplained Money Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250(6)

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. No regular return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act was filed for AY 2018-19. Based on the information that the appellant received interest income from United India Insurance Company

Chadralop Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Aurangabad vs. Exemption Ward, Aurangabad, Maharashtra

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for

ITA 778/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vijay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak, ARFor Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh, DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VIJAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. Praj Industries Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2096/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2096/Pun/2025 Assessment Year 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Amit BobdeFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Shaparia
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Pune Cantonment Board Kamgar Co-Operative Credit Society, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(1), Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2481/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

appreciating the genuine difficulty faced by the appellant society in filing its return of income before the due date specified in section 139(1), and also failed to appreciate the fact that return is being filed u/s. 139(4) is a valid return and appellant society is entitled

Reddy Sampat Vijaya, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle - 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1498/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘बी’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “B” Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ

Reddy Sampat Vijaya, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle -1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1497/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘बी’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “B” Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ

Reddy Sampat Vijaya, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle- 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1496/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘बी’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “B” Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ

The Warangal District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Hanamkonda vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 364/HYD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364/Hyd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22) The Warangal District Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Cooperative Central Bank Income Tax, Limited, Hanamkonda, Circle-3(1), Warangal. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabtt3137G (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 11/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 14/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M:

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)

subject year, i.e., AY 2021-22. 11. Admittedly, the assessee appellant had failed to file “Form 10IF” within the due date under Section 139(1) of the Act, but had subsequently sought for the condonation of the delay by filing an application u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. Thereafter

Madhyam, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- Exemp 1(4), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1456/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 154

submitted that the filing of the audit report in Form 10B online on or before filing the ITR under section 139(1) of the Act was one of the requirements to avail the benefit under section 11 and 12 of the Act. The requirement of filing of Form ... online on or before filing the ITR under section 139(1) of the Act was directory in nature and thus, was curable defect. The Ld. AO-CPC should have accepted the uploaded audit report in Form No. 10B at the time of processing the ITR under section 143(1

Sarvesh Kumar, Farrukhabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2)(2) Farrukhabad, Farrukhabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 452/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Sarvesh Kumar, Vs. Ito, Okharu Khanpur, Ward-4(2)(2), Farrukhabad, Fatehgarh, Farrukhabad Ho 209601 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Dsqpk3348G Assessee By : Shri Swaran Singh, Ca Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44A

opinion, has to be restricted to the failure of the assessee to file a return suo moto or a voluntary return under section 139(1) or section 139(4) within the prescribed time limit and not to cases where a notice under section 142(1) requiring the assessee to file ... return has already been issued. Say, for example, an assessee is obliged to file a return on or before 31-12-1991 under section 139(1), or before 31-3-1992 under section 139(4). Can it be said that before expiry of either of the periods, notice under section

Kanichukulangara Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, Kanichukulangara vs. Income Tax Officer, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 594/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI. ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bijumon Antony, C.AFor Respondent: ShriLeena Lal, (SR.AR.)
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 144oSection 250Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(2)Section 270A(3)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 80

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHINBENCH “DB”, COCHIN BEFORESHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERAND SHRI. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Ujjal Sinha, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1935/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1931, 1932, 1934 & 1935/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2012-13 Ujjal Sinha……………….……..……………………….……….……….……Appellant 57/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge S.O, Kol- 700019.. [Pan: Aeips4499F] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata….……..……………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 13, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 05.08.25, 05.08.25, 04.08.25 & 04.08.25 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Confirming Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Levied By The Assessing Officer. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

Ujjal Sinha, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1934/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1931, 1932, 1934 & 1935/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2012-13 Ujjal Sinha……………….……..……………………….……….……….……Appellant 57/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge S.O, Kol- 700019.. [Pan: Aeips4499F] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata….……..……………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 13, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 05.08.25, 05.08.25, 04.08.25 & 04.08.25 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Confirming Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Levied By The Assessing Officer. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

Ujjal Sinha, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1933/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Ujjal Sinha……..…………………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 57/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge S.O, Kolkata 19. [Pan: Aeips4499F] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata……………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 13, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.08.2025 Of The Cit (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011–12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income U/S.139(1) Of The Act For The A.Y. 2011-12 On 11/02/2012 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.19,12,432/-. In The Instant Case, A Search & Seizure Operation Was Conducted On 24.01.2012 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee Wherein No Incriminating Material Was Found. Thereafter. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 153A/143(3) Of The Act On 31/03/2014 Assessing The Total Income At Rs.92,12,430/- Wherein The Following Two Additions To The Total Income Were Made:

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh