THE ASSAM COOPERTAIVE APEX BANK LTD.,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI

That The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the unlawful action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs 478,34,99,604 by wrongly invoking sec. 69A, when the amount was duly recorded in the books of your appellant. The wrong application of law renders the order void ab initio hence liable to be quashed.

That First appellate authority and AO failed to distinguish between banking business and other trading business to treat the cash deposits and ITA No(s). 125/GTY/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2022-23 customers' deposits as unexplained money in want of non submission of evidences. In case of a bank, it is impossible to upload lakhs of customer ledgers on I T portal given the sheer volume and limitation of uploading just 50MB data in one attempt.

That the Ld. CIT(A) as well as AO failed to take note of audited balance sheet and simply relied upon the ITR, where the format of Balance sheet and P&L account is different, which requires aggregation of several heads into one. Further Cash deposited into other banks is statutory requirement and full details of source of collection and deposit are available with your appellant. Such huge addition of Rs.478,34,99,604 is liable to be quashed, given the fact that your appellant has been subjected to audit from multiple agencies.

The appellant crave the leave to alter, amend and substitute any of the grounds and put forth additional grounds at the time of hearing."

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a cooperative bank, had filed its return of income for AY 2022-23 declaring total income of ₹19,15,06,900/-. The case was selected for scrutiny based on several risk parameters, including large turnover from transactions in securities and mutual funds, excess contribution to a gratuity fund, low expenditure claimed against exempt income, high-value cash deposits reported in SFT, and high liabilities compared to low income. While the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') accepted the assessee's explanations regarding the securities transactions, gratuity fund contributions, and exempt income without adverse inference, the Ld. AO noted huge cash deposits aggregating to ₹334,15,20,117/- in various bank accounts and an increase in current liabilities by ₹144,19,79,487/- compared to the preceding assessment year. The assessee submitted that it is engaged in the banking business where such deposits and high liabilities are inherent and statutory, but failed to furnish supporting details, customer-wise details, or documentary evidence to prove the source of these specific amounts and genuineness of the transactions. Consequently, the Ld. AO completed the ITA No(s). 125/GTY/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2022-23 assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 15.03.2024, treating the cash deposits of ₹334,15,20,117/- and the unexplained liabilities of ₹144,19,79,487/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, thereby making total additions of ₹478,34,99,604/- to the income. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who condoned the delay in filing the appeal before him after considering the assessee's explanation regarding preoccupations with statutory audits, RBI and NABARD regulatory inspections, and a lack of professional manpower. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted additional evidence, which the Ld. CIT(A) forwarded to the Ld. AO for remand reports. In the remand reports, the Ld. AO noted that the documents furnished, including audit reports, financial statements, and general explanations, were insufficient to explain the source of deposits and the assessee failed to provide primary books of account, customer-wise cash receipt details, loan confirmations, or ledgers to substantiate the source of the high-value cash deposits or the genuineness of the increased liabilities. Concurring with the findings in the remand reports, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee failed to provide any credible corroborative evidence that could reasonably explain or justify the sources of the cash deposits and the newly created liabilities. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

Rival contentions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee is in banking business and the money belonged to the ITA No(s). 125/GTY/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2022-23 customers and it was extremely difficult to furnish the required record since they are voluminous. The Bench noted that the assessee is in banking business where details of each individual customer is maintained and it would not be difficult in the current era of computerised books of account and maintenance of documents to produce the details sought for by the Ld. AO. The assessee had also not furnished details relating to increase in the liabilities before the Ld. AO. The Ld. AR requested that the matter may be remanded to the Ld. AO and the assessee may be given one more opportunity so that required evidence could be filed. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be upheld as the assessee had failed to furnish the required evidence before the lower authorities but had no serious objection if the assessment was remanded to the Ld. AO.

We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Since there was no proper compliance before both the Ld. AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice and fair play it was considered by the Bench that one more opportunity of being heard may be provided assessee claims that the money belonged the customers and the required documents have been maintained which were not filed earlier before the Ld. AO. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the Ld. AO for making the reassessment de novo. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of the relief claimed and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in this appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 3rd June, 2026. [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 03.06.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)

CIT-

CIT(DR), Guwahati Benches, Guwahati.

Guard File. //// By order