आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2017-18 BK Garden Fresh Pvt. Ltd.……………………………………….……….……Appellant

12, Ramlochan Mullick Street, Kol-700007.

[PAN: AAFCB6953P]

vs.

ITO, Ward-7(1), Kolkata..………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by:

Shri N. S. Saini, AR and Satyaki Mondal, CA, appeared on behalf of the appellant.

Shri Subrata Aich, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

Date of concluding the hearing : September 15, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : November 18, 2025 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated

10.02.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘CIT(A)’] passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2017–18.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.10,31,194/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny specifically on the ground of large cash deposits during demonetisation period. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) along with questionnaire were issued and after considering the submissions and details submitted by the assessee, the Assessing Officer assessed total income at Rs.90,47,322/- after making the following additions:

1. bad debts Rs.90,006/-

2. cash discount Rs.95,622/-

3. charity and donation Rs.50,500/-

4. disallowed on cash deposits at Rs.77,80,000/- u/s 69A

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been partly allowed as the addition in respect of cash discounts of Rs.95,622/- has been deleted but the other additions were confirmed.

4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before us. The ld. AR challenges the additions made u/s 69A on the amount of Rs.77,80,000/- thereby submitting that the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) have rejected the explanation of the assessee that the cash collected was the sale proceeds of apple received by the assessee as a commission agent on behalf of growers of apple of Himachal and Kashmir which was immediately despotised in the bank account and paid to the respective growers through banking channels. The ld. AR submits the commission income earned by the assessee from the transactions was duly reflected in the profit and loss account and the same was offered to tax, hence, the provisions of section 69A will not apply in this case. The ld. AR has cited the following decisions:

1. CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194(SC)

2. Shree Sanad Textiles Industries vs. DCIT in ITA No.1166/Ahd/2014 (Ahmedabad ITAT)

3. CIT vs. Smt. Harshil Chordia vs. ITO ( 2008) 298 ITR 349 (Rajasthan HC)

4.1 The ld. AR further submits that so far the issue of bad debts of Rs.90,006/- u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act is concerned, the Assessing Officer disallowed the same on the ground that no convincing evidence was furnished by the assessee company ignoring the documents filed by the assessee such as ledger account of Mohammed Ayub. The ld. AR further submits that the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) erred on the issue of disallowance of Rs.50,500/- under the head ‘charity & donation’ ignoring the documentary evidence filed by the assessee and prayed that the matter be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after considering the books of account and other supporting documents of the assessee.

5. Contrary to that, the ld. DR supports the impugned order.

6. Upon hearing submission of the counsels of the respective parties and perused the material available on record, we find that the assessee has raised three grounds such as addition u/s 69A, disallowance of bad debts and disallowance of Rs.50,500/- under the head ‘charity &

donation’.

6.1 Addi