TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1343
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax Appellate Tribunal, "B" Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.2117/Kol/2024 relating to the assessment year 2018-19 at the instance of the revenue. It appears from the stay petition that the appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law: "(a) WHETHER the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in facts and circumstances of the case and in law in deleting of the addition of income of Rs. 19,21,00,329/-u/s. 69 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 considering that the investment/advance/loan was brought forward from the preceding year ignoring that there were no audited accounts or Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2017- 18? (b) WHETHER the observation of the Learned Income Tax Appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stified in facts and circumstances of the case and in law in ignoring the fact that the case was selected for scrutiny under the Computer-Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) system for verification of loans, advances, investments, and high-value transactions, and also by granting relief to the assessee without allowing the AO an opportunity to verify the claim made by the assessee? (g) WHETHER the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in facts and circumstances of the case and in law in overlooking the procedural requirement under the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates the AO to verify the details of investments, loans, and advances through a proper examination of supporting documents? (h) WHETHER the Learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the instant case which are narrated hereinafter. 5. What appears from the record is that the respondent/assessee has filed its return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 reporting total income nil. Pursuant thereto, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS for verification of transactions and investment/advances/loans. The Assessing Officer found credits of Rs.1,69,69,098/- and Rs.1,68,47,661/- recorded in the bank accounts of the assessee. While passing the order, the Assessing Officer held that the respondent/assessee could not explain the source of the credits. Accordingly, it was held that Rs.3,88,16,759/- was considered as unexplained money as contemplated under Section 69 of the said Act and added to the total income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....329/- as appearing in the audited statements on the ground that the respondent/assessee failed to furnish the supporting documents and also for the reasons as the same remained unexplained. In fact, it appears from the impugned order that the Appellate Tribunal had examined the bank accounts and also the audited balance-sheets of the respondent/assessee and only thereupon came to the finding that the respondent/assessee was able to explain the said transactions. The Tribunal also came to the finding, after considering the bank accounts as also the audited reports that the same could not be added as unexplained investments when the said transactions have been fully disclosed in the books of accounts and also coming over from preceding assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....furnished under section 139; or (b) determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of - (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent; and (ii) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause (1).] 2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance [or set off of a....