Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue is in appeal against the CIT(A)'s order concerning an addition of Rs. 4,40,000/- treated as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee claimed the amount was from railway ticket booking collections and personal savings.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear and provide evidence to substantiate the source of the funds, even after opportunities. The CIT(A)'s findings upholding the addition were found to be reasonable and without interference.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of Rs. 4,40,000/- as unexplained cash deposit under Section 69A was justified, and if the reopening notice under Section 148 was valid.
Sections Cited
69A, 115BBE, 148, 147, 144, 144B, 149, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.:
The present appeal has been filed by the revenue challenging the impugned order dt. 26.02.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) – Delhi / CIT(A), for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
“Grounds” “Grounds No.1 69A ADDITION The learned AO erred on facts, in law in treating cash deposit of RS. 4,40,000/- with Railways as unexplained Money u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act . Ground No. 2 148 ISSUE OF NOTICE The Learned AO erred on facts, in law to reopen assessment us 148 in light of the Judgment of The Honble Allahabad High court in writ Tax No 1086 of 2022 in Rajeev Bansal Vs union of India. Since the notice us 148 has been issued on 17.07.2022 that is after 3 years from the end of the financial year as the amount escaped assessment is less then Rs 50 lakhs .As per the Financial Act 2021 for A Y 2017-18 monetary threshold and other requirement of the Income Tax Act in the post amendment regime, that is after the commencement of the finance Act 2021 have to be followed by the department. The validity of the jurisdictional notice under section 148 is, thus, to be tested on the touchstone of compliances or fulfillment of requirements by the revenue as per section 149 (1)(b) and the first proviso to section 149(1) inserted by the amendment under the Finance Act 2021, w.e.f 01.04.2021.
In light of the above Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in case of Rajeev Bansal Vs Union of India Writ Tax No 1086 of 2022, the assessment proceedings us 148 and assessment order 144 r w s 144 issued in the assesse case is bad in law and need to be set aside.
Ground No. 3 69A ADDITION The Learned AO has added entire amount of cash deposit with Railway as railway agent JTBS has been treated as unexplained money, in fact the assesse has in his reply explained that the amount deposited is nothing but collection from clients from railway ticket booking and out of personal savings and small amount of Rs 42,000 from family members. For such small amount of Rs 440000 which is evident from the fact that the Railway Authority itself has stated that the assesse is a railway Agent JTBS and he is authorized to sell Railway tickets to the passengers and collect money as per the license given to him. Further it is quite obvious that during this period the assesse has collections from passengers which was not deposited with the railway as deposit for buying tickets and also some savings In the form of cash was lying with the assesse.
Ground No. 4 69A ADDITION The assesse being a common man was not known with the Income Tax proceedings therefore he could not comply with the proceedings regularly, for this delay in submitting reply may please be excused.
Ground No. 5 148 NOTICE ISSUE Since the assesse has filed reply to notice u/s 148 and provided all details and explanations asked for by the AO therefore the conclusion drawn by the AO is factually incorrect and Assessment order passed u/s 147/144 rws 144B of the Income Tax Act is bad in law.”
None appeared on behalf of the assessee, when the case was called repeatedly. Even no application for seeking adjournment AY 2017-18 Ayyub Shakilur Rehman Khan has been filed and ongoing through the case file. I notice that the intimation in the present appeal was served upon the assessee through RPAD and through e-mail ID, as per report of the registry. On the report of the assessee on the address supplied by the assessee. But still neither the assessee nor his representative appear before the bench.
On the other hand, Ld. DR present in the court is ready with the arguments therefore, I have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-party.
The only issue raised by the assessee is with regard to challenging the additions u/s. 69A of the Act.
In this regard, I have heard Ld. DR and perused the material placed on record. From the records I noticed that Ld. CIT(A) had dealt with this issue in detail and found that since the assessee remitted cash amount of Rs.4,40,000/- to the department of Railway Under JTBS Scheme, which is proportionate to average detail cash deposits and even after availing opportunity, the assessee could not substantiate the source of the said amount and thus, upheld the additions.
Even before us, neither the assessee appeared nor brought on record any documents to controvert or rebut the findings recorded by Ld. CIT(A). therefore, I find no reasons to interfere into to delay from findings so recorded by Ld.CIT(A). Thus, while dismissing the ground raised by the assessee, up hold the order
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 04/08/2025