IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM (Assessment Year:2017-18)

DCIT, CC-4(4), Kolkata Mira Bibi DCIT, Central Circle-4(4), W/o Jakir Hossain, College Para Aaykar Bhawan Poorva Aurangabad, Jangipur, 5^th Floor, Room No.509, 110, Vs.

Murshidabad, PIN-742201, Shanti pally, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (

Respondent)

PAN No. ADOPB6894Q Assessee by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra &

Ms. Anupam Kumar Dey, AR Revenue by : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR Date of hearing: 21.11.2025 Date of pronouncement: 20.01.2026

O R D E R

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 27.12.2024 for the AY 2017-18.

2. The only issue raised by the Revenue is against the order of ld. CIT (A)

deleting the addition of ₹1,21,00,000/- as made by the ld. AO u/s 68 of the Act in respect of cash gifts received from donors by treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act.

3. The facts in brief are that the case of the assessee was reopened u/s

148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) vide notice dated 31.03.2021, by ITO Ward 42(1), on the ground that the assessee has made huge cash deposits and withdrawals during the year which were not matching with the return of income filed. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. AO issued notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) along with questionnaire. The ld. AO noted that though the assessee has filed the return u/s 139(1) of the Act for the impugned assessment year, however, various cash deposits and withdrawals in multiple bank accounts were not reflected. The assessee filed the return of income on 23.04.2021 in compliance to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter, the ld. AO noted that the assessee has received gifts of ₹75 lacs from Mojibur Rahaman Biswas and ₹46 lacs from Latifuddin and documentary evidences furnished by the assessee were also examined. The ld. AO also referred to the confirmation issued by Mojibur Rahaman Biswas dated 21.02.2022, wherein the person confirmed the gift given to the assessee on various dates out of the explained sources. It was also submitted that the said donor has sufficient resources as he was having manufacturing business as well acting as director/ partners in many firms and companies. Similarly, the ld. AO referred to the confirmation of gift dated 21.02.2022, given by Shri Latifuddin who also stated that he has a proprietor of a manufacturing concerns as well as contractor/ partner of several firms. The ld. AO noted that since the assessee has received gifts in cash and failed to furnish the gift deeds and therefore, treated the said amount of gifts received as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 read with section

115BBE of the Act and added to the income of the assessee.

4. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing and holding as under:-

“5.2.1. I have gone through the assessment order as well as the submission of the assessee. On examining the same, it is noticed that during the year under consideration, the assessee had received two cash gifts from two persons namely Mr. Mojibur Rahaman Biswas & Mr. Latifuddin of Rs.75,00,000/- and Rs.46,00,000/-, totaling to Rs.1,21,00,000/-, who are own brothers-in-law of the assessee. During the asst. proceedings, the AO had asked the assessee to prove the genuineness and source of such cash gift. It is noticed that the assessee had furnished all the relevant details and documents in respect of such cash gift during the asst. proceedings viz. confirmations from the doners, their financial statements, copy of ITRs of these persons, PANs, Registered addresses, balance sheets reflecting such gifts to the assessee etc. However, it is also observed that the assessee had not provided gift deed to the