INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD - 3(3), DUMKA, DUMKA vs. TAPAN KUMAR PANDIT, DUMKA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. RAJANI GUDURI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 355/RAN/2026 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) I.T.O., Tapan Kumar Pandit, Ward-3(3), Masalia K Bhoktadih, Rangamatia, Vs. Dumka. Dumka-814166 (Jharkhand) PAN No. AABCC 6786 F Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

Department represented by Shri Sandipan Khan, Sr.DR Assessee represented by Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, C.A. Date of hearing 05/10/2026 Date of pronouncement 14/10/2026 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 13/04/2026 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee has not filed his original return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19 despite having made a huge financial transactions amounting to ₹ 1,07,98,537/- on the basis of the information available with the Assessing Officer as under:  Cash deposits of ₹ 4,350/- in his SBI a/c No. CA 35152202459  Cash withdrawals of ₹ 1,06,79,971/- from his SBI a/c No. CA 35152202459  Receipts u/s 194H from M/s Save Solutions Pvt. Ltd. amounting to ₹ 1,14,216/-.

I.T.A. No. 355/RAN/2026 ITO Vs Tapan Kumar Pandit The Assessing Officer, therefore, initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 25/03/2022 was issued to the assessee after following due procedure of law as provided in Section 148A(b) and 148A(d) of the Act. However, despite given several opportunities of being heard provided to the assessee by way of issuing various notices to the assessee as recorded in the assessment order, the assessee has not made any submission nor filed any reply to establish the genuineness of the transactions made by him. The assessee did not file his return of income even in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer, then framed the assessment order under Section 147 read with section 144 of the Act and added a sum of ₹ 1,06,79,971/- under Section 69 of the Act as unexplained expenditure. Further, the Assessing Officer also added a sum of ₹ 1,14,216 and 4,350/- under Section 69A of the Act on the ground that the assessee has failed to explain the same. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dated 13/04/2026 allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee is acting as a Banking Correspondent as Common Service Point (CSP) of SBI Kiosk at Rangamatia under "Save Solution Pvt. Ltd.", Jharkhand. It was further mentioned in the impugned order that the submission given by the assessee and the nature of income earned by him has been explained satisfactorily before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) did not find anything adverse in the details and documents furnished by the assessee.

I.T.A. No. 355/RAN/2026 ITO Vs Tapan Kumar Pandit 4. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the revenue has filed this appeal before this Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal: "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,07,98,537/- merely based on the submission made of the assessee before him without considering the findings of the Assessing Officer. In the interest of revenue, the Ld. CIT(A) should have remanded the case to the assessing officer for verification, thereby violating the provisions of Rule 46A(3) of the I.T. Rules, 1962. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) violated Rule 46A(1) of the I.T. Rules, 1962, in admitting the additional evidences that were not produced before the faceless Assessing Officer, as the conditions of Rule 46A(1) were not fulfilled in the case. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) violated Rule 46A(2) of the I.T. Act, 1962 by not recording the reasons in writing for admission of additional evidence. 4. That the applicant craves leave to add, delete and modify the grounds of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT." 5. During the appellate proceedings before us, it was submitted by the ld. Sr.DR that the assessee did not produce any details before the Assessing Officer nor explained or substantiated the nature and source of receipts despite given several opportunities of being heard to him. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) is not correct in deciding the issue without asking for any remand report from the Assessing Officer and therefore, has violated the provisions of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The ld. Sr.DR further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has also erred to admit the additional evidence which was not produced before the Assessing Officer. 6. The ld. AR of the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that the assessee was acting as a CSP of SBI Kiosk at Rangamatia under "Save Solution Pvt. Ltd." and is authorised to provide cash to the customers after making necessary

I.T.A. No. 355/RAN/2026 ITO Vs Tapan Kumar Pandit verification of the documents submitted by the customer and all the deposits and withdrawals made on a regular basis are coming from and going back to the bank. Thus, the assessee cannot be held liable for suppression of income. Since all the transactions have been made through the banking channels and whatever commission income he has earned, the TDS under Section 194H of the Act has been deducted. Since the assessee has not incurred any expenditure and all the deposits and withdrawals have been made through the banks i.e. SBI. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and we find that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order after examining the issue in detail and after getting satisfied, he deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. He has also not admitted any additional evidence except the transactions made through the bank. Thus, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and we uphold the same. 8. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 14/10/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (RAJANI GUDURI) (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 14/10/2026 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR By order 5. Guard File

Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi