Radhakrishna Forex Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
The ITAT Kolkata partly allowed the appeal filed by Radhakrishna Forex Private Limited for AY 2018-19 and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee had originally filed its return declaring total income of ₹1,85,170. During assessment proceedings, the Department found cash deposits of ₹61.76 crore and total credits of ₹62.42 crore in the assessee’s Bank of Baroda account, while the turnover disclosed in the return was ₹61.61 crore. The assessee explained that it was engaged in buying and selling foreign currency and that sale proceeds were deposited into the bank account before being used for currency purchases. The Assessing Officer observed discrepancies between sales figures and bank credits, particularly for November 2016, and sought supporting documents including FLM-5, FLM-8, ledgers, and travel documents. As the assessee allegedly failed to furnish complete details, the difference of ₹81.14 lakh between bank credits and declared turnover was treated as unexplained money under Section 69A and added to income.
The CIT(A) upheld the addition, stating that the assessee had failed to effectively challenge the findings of the Assessing Officer and had only made general submissions without disproving the unexplained excess credits. Before the Tribunal, the assessee argued that adequate opportunity should be granted to explain the differences between bank credits and turnover figures. The Tribunal observed that the findings of the CIT(A) were inconsistent with the assessment order because the Assessing Officer had not individually examined all entries but had merely adopted the difference between total credits and turnover as unexplained income. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh disposal by passing a speaking order after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Tribunal also directed compliance with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and permitted hearing of the Assessing Officer, if required. Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
