INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. SUMAN KUMAR JHA, CHENNAI

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These are the appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)‘), Delhi, dated 26.09.2025 and 06.06.2025, respectively for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY ‘) 2017-18 & 2018-19.

iTA No. 77 & 92 /Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 & 2018-19) SUMAN KUMAR JHA :: 2 :: 2. None appeared for the assessee. However, we note that the issues permeating in both the appeals of Revenue are identical (only difference in figures), the appeal for AY. 2018-19 is taken as the lead case the result of which will be followed for AY.2017-18.

iTA No. 77 & 92 /Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 & 2018-19) SUMAN KUMAR JHA :: 3 :: the assessee to prove the nature and source of the deposits. Pursuant to the notice, the assessee submitted that he was an employee of M/s A.S. Transport Company, and that the funds were transferred to his personal account being the Manager of the Company at Velappanchavadi (Tamil Nadu). And filed Board Resolution of the Company as documentary evidence that the personal bank account of the assessee has been opened for use by the Company [A.S. Transport] to operate the day-to-day transaction like payment of hiring charges for truck, (both advance hire and balance hire), towards placement of vehicle for primary transport, etc. The assessee also filed bank statements of M/s. A.S. Transport Company, and fund transfer letter of the Company to support his contention that the amounts transferred was from the Company (M/s A.S. Transport) bank account to assessee’s personal bank account for business purpose. The assessee also brought to the notice of the AO that M/s A.S. Transport is having PAN No.AAACA4927B and is assessed under the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Corporate Range-1, Chenna) and that all the transactions made by the assessee was pursuant to the directions/transfer of funds, which facts were duly entered in the statements accompanying return/ITR of the Company [M/s A.S. Transport]. The AO issued notice u/s.133(6) to M/s A.S. Transport Company, which confirmed that the money is transferred from its account and it owned up the debit & credit of the personal account of the

iTA No. 77 & 92 /Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 & 2018-19) SUMAN KUMAR JHA :: 4 :: assessee. However, the AO was of the view that assessee could not conclusively prove the source of money used to deposit in his personal bank account with satisfactory explanation which was subsequently withdrawn in cash. Hence, he added Rs.5,40,82,964/- as unexplained money u/s.69A in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. And also informed the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) of the M/s A.S. Transport Company to initiate action in their hands. Similarly, protective assessment was made in the hands of the assessee for AY.2017-18 of Rs.3,44,90,000/-. For AY 2018-19, the AO added Rs.5,40,82,964/- as unexplained money u/s.69A in the hands of the assessee on protective basis by holding as under: -

“a) In view of the facts and rebuttal to the reply of the show cause notice, it is found that the assessee could not conclusively prove the sources of money used to deposit in his bank account no. 40540200000165 with satisfactory explanation which was subsequently mainly withdrawn in cash But, the company has owned up the debit and credit entries of this bank account no. 40540200000165 in response to notice u/s 133(6) and as per the submission of the assessee. Therefore, the entire amount of deposit of Rs. 3,44,90,000.00/-in the bank account no. 40540200000165 is treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the hand of the assessee on protective basis in the interest of the revenue till this income is assessed in the hand of the company, A.S. Transport Private Limited. This unexplained money is taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act. On this addition, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) is initiated if adverse view is taken in appellate stage in the case of the assessee. Late fee u/s 234F is initiated for not filling the return of income. The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer of the company, A.S. Transport Private Limited, is separately Intimated with regard to owning up the above bank account of the assessee by this company to take action as per the provision of the Act at his end. On the same issue, protective assessment has been done in the case of assessee for AY 2018-19 and made addition Rs. 5,40,82,964/-.” 5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who noted that the assessee in the relevant year has deposited

iTA No. 77 & 92 /Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 & 2018-19) SUMAN KUMAR JHA :: 5 :: Rs.5,40,82,688/- in bank account maintained with Bank of Baroda and also made withdrawal of Rs.4,54,02650/- from his bank account in F.Y.2017-18. The Ld.CIT(A) found that assessee is only an employee of the Company M/s A.S. Transport and deposits in his account were from the Company account and cash withdrawal from the account is used to pay the transporter’s as lorry hiring charges. The assessee submitted copy of the bank account statements of the Company account along with Company’s cash book. The Ld.CIT(A) took note of the fact that (i) the Company A.S. Transport is reputed Company and is regularly assessed under the Income Tax and (ii) the Company had owned up the debit/credit entries of the impugned bank account of the assessee and (iii) that AO of M/s A.S.Transport Company had found on perusal of order dated 31.08.2024 passed under section 148A(d) for AY 2018-19, after examining the fact-in-issue, had found it not fit case for reopening the assessment for AY 2018-19. The AO’s observation made in the order passed under section 148A for AY 2018-19 in the case of M/s A.S.Transport Company is as under;-

"In view of the above facts and the submissions along with documentary evidence of the instant case, I am satisfied that the assessee has admitted the Expenses claimed towards Hire costs amounting to Rs. 8,01,73,461/-, which includes the amount of Rs.5,40,82,688/- transferred to his manager for lorry hire charges, correctly as per the books maintained during the year under consideration. Hence, it is not a fit case to issue a notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961.”

iTA No. 77 & 92 /Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 & 2018-19) SUMAN KUMAR JHA :: 6 ::

“Accordingly, in view of the above, it is apparent that the protective addition made in the case of the appellant no longer sustains, as the same addition has duly been examined and decided in the case of the AS Transport Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 2018-19 by the AO vide its order u/s 148A(d) dated 31.08.2024 and found the transaction to be duly reflected, therefore, the addition of Rs.5,40,82,688/- is hereby deleted.” 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is before us. The facts discussed are not in dispute; hence it is not repeated for sake of brevity. The AO finding the assessee having deposited Rs.5,40,82,964/- in his bank account, directed the assessee to prove the nature and source of the deposit. Pursuant to which, assessee explained that he is only an employee of the Company M/s A.S. Transport and deposits in his account were nothing but fund transferred from the Company account for business purpose of the Company; and that cash withdrawals from the account was used to pay the transporter’s as lorry hiring charges. And that all the transactions made by the assessee was

iTA No. 77 & 92 /Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 & 2018-19) SUMAN KUMAR JHA :: 7 :: pursuant to the directions of the Company, which facts were duly entered in the statements accompanying return/ITR of the Company [M/s A.S. Transport]. To support his contention, the assessee submitted copy of the bank account statements of the Company account along with Company’s cash book. The AO is noted to have issued notice u/s.133(6) to M/s A.S. Transport Company, which confirmed that the money in question was transferred from its account and it owned up the debit & credit of the personal account of the assessee. Thus, assessee is noted to have filed the primary evidence to prove the nature and source of the deposit from M/s. A.S. Transport Company, which has PAN No. AAACA4927B and is noted to be regularly assessed to tax under Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Corporate Range-1, Chennai). Hence, assessee is noted to have discharged the burden to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the deposits made in his personal bank account. In such scenario, the onus shifts to the shoulder of the AO to rebut the same, and the AO has not been able to rebut the same. Rather, as noted, M/s A.S. Transport confirmed and owned up the entire credit/debit entries found in the personal bank account of the assessee, pursuant to the AO’s notice u/s.133(6) of the Act. In such a scenario, the action of the AO to make addition u/s.69A is unsustainable in law and Ld.CIT(A) rightly deleted the protective addition made in the hand of the assessee which impugned

iTA No. 77 & 92 /Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 & 2018-19) SUMAN KUMAR JHA :: 8 :: action does not require any interference from our part, therefore, the appeal of the assessee for A.Y.2018-19 stands dismissed.

iTA No. 77 & 92 /Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 & 2018-19) SUMAN KUMAR JHA :: 9 :: the foregoing reason, we confirm the impugned action of Ld CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of Revenue. 9. Coming to Appeal for AY 2017-18, since no change in facts or law could be pointed out; following the aforesaid reasoning, appeal for A.Y.2017-18 also stands dismissed.

Order pronounced on the 05th day of June, 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (इंटूरी रामा राव) (एबी टी. वक�) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (ABY T. VARKEY) लेखा सद�/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 05th June, 2026. YS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF

Digitally signed YASHVI by YASHVIR SINGH R SINGH Date: 2026.06.20 16:50:12 +05'30'