BHUSHAN NANA MARATHE,DHULE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, DHULE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3109/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 May 2026AY 2019-203 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee earns meagre commission and the CIT(A)'s estimation of 2% was without basis. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee, a commission agent, had his case reopened based on cash deposit and withdrawal information. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 2,52,26,060/-. The CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs. 5,04,520/-, representing 2% of the turnover.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of cash deposits is justified, considering the assessee's business as a commission agent with meagre earnings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Shingte
For Respondent: Shri Sailee Dhole, JCIT

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AY 2019-20 on 16-07- 2024, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 10-03-2024.

2.

There was a delay of 442 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal. We have perused the condonation petition filed by the assessee and observed that there was sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay. Substantial justice is more important than procedural delays. No assessee is going to gain anything by delaying the appeal. Accordingly, we condone the delay.

3.

Submission of Ld.AR: Ld.AR filed the paper book containing 201 pages. Ld.AR submitted that assessee was a commission agent of Vakrangee Limited. Ld.AR

ITA No. 3109/PUN/2025

submitted that the assessee’s case was reopened based on the information regarding cash deposits and withdrawals. Ld.AR submitted that all the details were filed before the AO, but the AO made addition of Rs. 2,52,26,060/- without understanding the work done by the assessee as commission agent. Ld.AR submitted that assessee is a small commission agent, who receives meagre commission. Therefore, the entire cash deposits cannot be considered as income of the assessee. Ld.AO erred in ignoring the fact that there were almost equal amounts of withdrawals. Ld.AR took us through pg. No. 7-13 of paper book, which was ledger account of the assessee, in the books of Vakrangee Limited. Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has considered all these submissions and directed the AO to consider only 2% of the total turnover as income of the assessee and confirmed addition of Rs. 5,04,520/- as 2% of Rs. 2,52,26,060/-. However, Ld.AR submitted that in the business of the assessee, the commission margin is only 0.5%. Ld.AR submitted that this can be understood from the ledger account which has been filed at pg. No. 7-13 of the paper book. Ld.AR also invited our attention to pg. No. 29-184 which was ledger account of Vakrangee Kendra. Ld.AR, therefore, requested that the returned income may kindly be accepted.

4.

Submission of Ld.DR: The Ld.DR relied on the order of the AO and Ld.CIT(A).

5.

Findings and analysis: We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the assessee filed return of income on 12-04-2023, declaring total income at Rs. 2,36,010/-. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee made elaborate submission, assessee submitted that he is a commission agent of Vakrangee Limited and Airtel payment banks. Assessee submitted that he meagerly earns commission. We have studied the paper book at pg. No. 4 of the paper book, the certificate issued by the Airtel payment bank, authorizing Vakrangee Kendra as business correspondent of the Airtel Bank. At pg. No. 195 is the certificate issued by Vakrangee Limited, confirming appointment of assessee as business correspondent agent. We have also studied the ledger account filed by the assessee in the paper book. Ld.AR has also taken us through copy of the return of income filed by the

ITA No. 3109/PUN/2025

assessee for AY. 2022-23, 2023-24, 2024-25 and 2025-26 wherein assessee has disclosed the commission income. It seems that these returns of income have been accepted by the Revenue. On perusal of the documents filed, we are convinced that assessee earns meagre commission, therefore, the commission decided by the Ld.CIT(A) @ 2% is without any basis and needs to be deleted. Accordingly, we direct the Ld.AO to delete the addition confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A).

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 22nd May, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 22-05-2026 TNMM

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अपील र्थी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 2. 3. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘SMC’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →