VIRENDRA SINGH,MAINPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(5), MAINPURI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 63/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Virendra Singh, Madhupur, Vs. ITO, Ward 4(2)(5),Aayakar Post Madhan Mainpuri,-205263 Bhawan, Civil Lines, Mainpuri- 205001 PAN : BTRPS4228K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Anurag Singh, Adv Department by Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr (DR) Date of hearing 18.03.2026 Date of pronouncement 19.05.2026 ORDER

PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 25.11.2025 passed in Appeal No NFAC/2016-17/10203951 by the ld Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurugram [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. 2017-18, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal. 2. Briefly stating the facts are that assessee is a non filer. Cash deposit of Rs. 12,77,000/- in assessee’s bank account no. 43950400000001 maintained with Bank of Baroda, Nauner Branch, Mainpuri was noticed by

ITA No.63/Agr/2026

the department during the demonetization period (09.11.2016 to 30.11.2016). Assessee did not respond to the notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act. Assessing officer issued notice u/s. 136(3) of the Act to assessee’s bank and procured the bank statement. According to the information received from Bank of Baroda, it was revealed that the assessee was running Common Sevice Centre/ business Correspondent and providing banking facilities. Assessee was also found to have deposited cash amount of Rs. 5,39,000/- on 11.11.2016 and Rs. 1,90,000/- on 12.11.2016 and immediately after cash deposits, withdrawals were made. Since assessee did not respond to the various opportunities afforded by the assessing office to explain the nature and sources of the cash deposits, the total cash deposit of Rs. 7,29,000/- was added u/s. 69A of the Act in the income of the assessee. 3. Assessee preferred an appeal before ld CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal 4. Assessee has filed this second appeal before the tribunal on the ground that ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions, ignoring the fact that the assessee was working on commission at the rate of 0.25 paise per hundred rupees of deposit from business correspondent to Bank of Baroda facilitator services, further ignoring that the cash is deposited and

2 | P a g e

ITA No.63/Agr/2026

withdrawn on behalf of the customers in accordance with the guidelines vide notification no. 2652 dated 08.11.2016. 5. Perused the records and heard ld representative for the appellant assessee and ld Sr DR for the respondent revenue. 6. At the outset, we note that the assessee did not respond to the various opportunities afforded during the assessment proceedings. The best judgment was completed ex-parte u/s. 144 of the Act. Ld CIT(A) has mentioned in the impugned order that the appellant assessee was also not very cooperative during the first appellate proceedings. It is further noticed that the assessee, neither responded to the A.O’s. show cause notice dated 04.06.2019 issued u/s. 144 of the Act nor the required details were filed before the first appellate authority as stated in para 4.4 of the impugned order. This apart, the copy of bank account, synopsis of deposit/ withdrawals during the previous year, especially during demonetization of the claimed depositor, confirmation from depositors/bank and confirmation of claimed commission income received from the bank do not appear to have been filed before the revenue authorities. In such circumstances ld CIT(A) had no option but to confirm the assessment order. The assessee has filed letter dated 15.11.2016 addressed to the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Nauner Branch, Mainpuri, requesting to deposit Rs. 4,11,500/- alongwith the list of customers, which has not been considered by the

3 | P a g e

ITA No.63/Agr/2026

ld CIT(A), which may also require verification. In such facts and circumstances, we deem it just and appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of ld assessing officer to decide the matter a fresh in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We direct the assessee to make submissions before the assessing officer alongwith required evidence noted hereinbefore. The appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on – 19.05.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (M BALAGANESH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 19.05.2026 *Aamir Siddiqui, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

4 | P a g e