PRAMOD KUMAR,AGRA vs. ITO 2(1)(2), AGRA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 122/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Pramod Kumar, S/O Shri Vs. ITO 2(1)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Rambharosi Lal Agarwal, Sanjay Place, Agra-282002 2290/27, Mohalla Rathiya, Achhnera, Agra-283101 PAN : AEFPA6033A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sahib P. Satsangi, C.A. Department by Shri Harsh Siddharth Gautam, Sr (DR)

Date of hearing 21.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 21.05.2026 ORDER

PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 07.01.2026 passed in Appeal No NFAC/2014-15/10230281 by the ld Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC (Delhi) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act), for the A.Y. 2015-16, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal. 2. The brief facts state that assessee is a non filer. During the year under consideration, assessee deposited cash of Rs. 74,96,300/- in his bank account maintained with Canara Bank. Assessee’s case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 was issued. Assessee filed

ITA No.122/Agr/2026 return of income on 13.04.2022, declaring total income at Rs. 2,68,520/- in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Assessee submitted during the assessment proceedings that the source of cash deposit was from gross trading receipt of Rs. 81,98,250/- on account of potato sales and submitted computation of income, copy of ITR, sale register, purchase register, copy of cash book, bank statement, copy of monthwise sale invoices of potato purchase, Udyam Registration Certificate, Khata-vahi, copy of bhulekh in respect of some farmers etc. The assessing officer observed that there was a sharp rise in gross receipts as compared to preceding and succeeding assessment years and, has covered up his unaccounted income by using colourably device in the name of potato sales and added the entire amount of Rs. 74,96,300/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 3. Assessee preferred an appeal before ld CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal. 4. Appellant assessee has preferred this appeal on the following grounds: “Ground 1: That the Learned CIT(A) has wrongly added cash deposits of Rs. 74,96,300/- as income of the appellant citing non-existence of a business. Ground 2: That the learned CIT(A) has proceeding with prejudiced mindset denying all verifiable evidences and giving unreasonable justifications. Ground 3: That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly invoked and made addition under section 69A treating cash deposits in bank account as unexplained money. Ground 4: That the reassessment proceedings are bad in law as approval u/s 151 of the income tax act 1961 was given in a mechanical way. Ground 5: The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend OR withdraw any 2 | P a g e

ITA No.122/Agr/2026 of the above grounds at OR before the time of hearing. Ground 6: The levy of interest u/s 234A and 234B is consequential and excessive and liable to be deleted OR recomputed.” 5. Perused the records and heard ld representative for the appellant assessee and ld Sr DR for the respondent revenue. 6. The main point for determination, on the basis of aforesaid grounds raised under appeal, is as to (i) whether the reassessment proceedings are bad in law as approval u/s. 151 of the Act was given in a mechanical way? (ii) whether ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of cash deposit of Rs. 74,96,300/-? 7. As regards point no (i), notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act dated 15.03.2022 is at page no. 1 of the assessee’s paper books, wherein the assessing officer has mentioned in the last para 4, that the notice was issued after obtaining the prior approval of PCCIT, UP (West) & Uttarakhand and the approval was accorded on 14.03.2022 vide reference no. 100000029166378. Order u/s. 148(A)(d) dated 26.03.2022, which is part of assessee’s paper book at page 3, also speaks of the aforestated details. Similarly, notice u/s. 148 dated 28.03.2022, which is part of assessee’s paper book at page 5, refers approval by PCCIT UP (West) & Uttarakhand having accorded approval on 25.03.2022, vide reference no. 100000029166378. Assessee has not filed the copy of the approval of the sanctioning authority so as to ascertain that the sanction was accorded

3 | P a g e

ITA No.122/Agr/2026 mechanically. In such a scenario assessee has failed to prove that the approval u/s. 151 of the Act was accorded in a mechanical way. 8. As regards point no (ii), the assessee is said to be engaged in the trading business of agricultural purchase (potatoes), vegetables, etc. According to assessee’s AR/ written synopsis, in such a business the transactions are predominantly in cash as the farmers do not have PAN and there is no GST applicability of such agricultural purchase. It appears that the appellant assessee had opted for presumptive taxation u/s. 44AD of the Act in other years. Admittedly appellant has maintained books of accounts claiming to have sold potatoes. Assessee is free to undertake different lines of business with this choice of regime permitted under the law. The diversification of business activities by the appellant assessee cannot be a ground to doubt the genuineness of the assessee’s potato trading business. The Gram Pradhan of assessee’s Gram Panchayat, Ardaya Vikas Khand Achhnera (Agra), has issued a certificate which is part of assessee’s paper book at page 158, showing that assessee Pramod Kumar has done the business of potato from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015 i.e. for A.Y. 2015-16. Assessee reflected sale invoices and corresponding sale proceeds to tax in the return. The transactions are duly accounted for and subject to taxation. The cash deposits in question are duly recorded in assessee’s book of accounts and offered to tax. Assessing officer has not rejected assessee’s books by invoking provision of section 145(3) of the 4 | P a g e

ITA No.122/Agr/2026 Act. The addition in question may lead to double taxation, hence deleted. The impugned order is, thus, unsustainable. The aforesaid points are determined accordingly. Assessee’s appeal is liable to be allowed in part. 9. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced on – 21.05.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (S RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 21.05.2026

Aamir Siddiqui, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

5 | P a g e