UPENDRA SHA,LAHORIJAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD (1) DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

ITA 140/GTY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati14 October 2026AY 2018-196 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had substantial cash deposits but had not filed a return of income. The assessee claimed to provide net banking facilities to weaker sections and book tickets, for which incomplete documents were furnished. Considering the prayer of the assessee, the facts of the case, and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate their case with cogent documents and avoid unnecessary adjournments to ensure early disposal. The Tribunal stated that no second leniency would be granted if the assessee fails to comply. The issue of whether the addition under Section 69A was justified was not decided on merits but remanded for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Upendra Sha, is in appeal against the order of the NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The appeal arises from an assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which made an addition of Rs. 1,50,49,925/- under Section 69A. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under Section 148 after receiving information that the assessee had deposited Rs. 1,50,49,925/- but had not filed an Income Tax Return (ITR). The assessee filed a belated return declaring an income of Rs. 46,580/-. The assessee claimed to have accepted cash from individuals, transferred it to other bank accounts at their request, and charged a 1% commission. The assessee also stated to have booked train tickets via IRCTC for a commission and earned bank interest. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the documents provided to prove the source of cash deposits, citing discrepancies and incomplete details, and treated the entire amount as unexplained money.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 1,50,49,925/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as unexplained cash credit, is justified, considering the assessee's explanation of providing net banking facilities and booking train tickets for commission, and the documents furnished. Assessee's Contentions: - Various documents and details were furnished during assessment proceedings, which were not rejected by the Assessing Officer. - The assessee provided internet banking facilities to the weaker sections of society for sending money to their families and relatives and booked tickets through IRCTC. - The addition under Section 69A is unjustified as the assessee earned only a nominal commission of 1% and had furnished various documents. - Requested one more opportunity to prove the source of cash. Revenue's Contentions: - The assessee did not have the right to transfer depositors' money or provide such facilities. - The assessee had not obtained any license for booking tickets. - The assessee failed to file complete details to explain the source of the cash.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 250,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI ‘DB’ BENCH

Before: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Jain, FCA
For Respondent: Shri PS Thuingaleng, CIT, DR
Hearing: 12.10.2026Pronounced: 14.10.2026

PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [“the Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 09.01.2025 with DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072044956(1), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2018-19, arising out of the Assessment order dated 06.03.2023 with DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2022-23/1050472083(1) passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, against the addition of Rs.1,50,49,925/- u/s 69A of the Act. Upendra Sha; A.Y.: 2018-19

2.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, as per the information available with the Income Tax Department, it was alleged that the Assessee

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →