आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ' ' , कोलकाता डी पीठ कोलकाता म IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA , श्री दुव्वुरु आरएल रेड्डी उपाध्यक्ष (कोलकाता क्षत्रे )

एवं , श्री राके श धमश्रा लखे ा सदस्य के सम Before SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT (KZ)

&

SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 502/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Maitrayee Das DCIT, Cir-27(1), Haldia Vs.

(Appellant) (Respondent)

PAN: AEFPD0377Q Appearances:

Assessee represented by : Somnath Ghosh, Adv.

Department represented by : None.

Date of concluding the hearing : January 7^th, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : January 22^nd, 2025

ORDER

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2017-18 dated 19.03.2023, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 31.12.2019.

2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:

“1. FOR THAT the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-N.FA.C. acted unlawfully in upholding the purported addition in the sum of Rs. 13,54,371/- made by the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), Haldia alleging unexplained cash credits invoking the provisions of s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and the specious finding on that issue is absolutely arbitrary, unwarranted, and perverse.

2. FOR THAT the specious approach of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-N.F.A.C. of misreading evidence, considering improper facts, failing to consider proper position in law and thus coming to an erroneous finding in sustaining the addition in the sum of Rs. 13,54,371/- made by the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), Haldia on the manifestly wrong application of the provisions of s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 basing on considerations not relevant to the issue is wholly illegal, illegitimate, and infirm in law.

3. FOR THAT the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-N.F.A.C. erred in upholding the purported addition of Rs. 13,54,371/- made by the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), Haldia on account of alleged unexplained cash credits on extraneous considerations not germane to the issue in dispute and also totally ignoring the cogent explanation adduced on record and the impugned finding on that issue is completely unfounded, unjustified, and untenable in law.

4. FOR THAT on a true and proper interpretation of the scope of the provisions of s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-N.F.A.C. was absolutely in error in upholding the specious addition of Rs. 13,54,371/- resorted to by the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), Haldia without considering the matter in the proper perspective and such spurious conclusion reached on extraneous considerations not germane to the issue in dispute is wholly opposed to law.”

3. Brief facts of the case, as stated by the assessee are as under:

“The appellant, a lady individual, is an authorised dealer of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. dealing in motor spirits and high-speed diesel under the name and style of “Bargabhima Fuel Centre”. The appellant had filed her return of income u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28-09-2017 disclosing the total income of Rs. 91,00,230/- for the assessment year under dispute. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), Haldia (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. AO’) desired the appellant to produce the details of cash deposits during demonetization period which were duly complied with by the appellant. The Ld. AO found that the appellant had received alleged refunds of booking amount in the aggregate of Rs. 13,54,371/- from River Bank Devel