Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “K (SMC
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY
ORDER
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 30.03.2025 passed by the Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Noida [hereinafter shall be referred as “Ld. CIT(A)”] for assessment year 2013-14, raising following grounds:
1. Your appellant is aggrieved by the addition of undisclosed income of Rs 86,539/- & pray yourself to delete the additions.
2. Your appellant is aggrieved by the addition of unexplained income of Rs. 6,66,475/- additions are on the adhoc, estimated basis in spite of details provided. Additional evidence enclosed & basis in spite of details provided. Additional evidence enclosed & basis in spite of details provided. Additional evidence enclosed & pray yourself to delete the additions pray yourself to delete the additions 3. Your appellant is aggrieved by the order passed u/s 250 of 3. Your appellant is aggrieved by the order passed u/s 250 of 3. Your appellant is aggrieved by the order passed u/s 250 of Income Tax Ac Income Tax Act 1961, after lapse of Nine years, which is beyond t 1961, after lapse of Nine years, which is beyond time limit & pray your self to Reject/ dismiss / cancel the time limit & pray your self to Reject/ dismiss / cancel the time limit & pray your self to Reject/ dismiss / cancel the CIT appeals order.
2. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ground No. 3 was not pressed by the assessee and therefore, ground No. 3 was not pressed by the assessee and therefore, ground No. 3 was not pressed by the assessee and therefore, accordingly, same is dismissed as infructuous. same is dismissed as infructuous.
3. The appeal primarily The appeal primarily arise out of the concurrent findings arise out of the concurrent findings rendered by the Assessing Officer and the rendered by the Assessing Officer and the ld CIT(A) ld CIT(A) confirming two additions to the income of the appellant/assessee additions to the income of the appellant/assessee— —an individual— made under the Income made under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The appellant "the Act"). The appellant/assessee was engaged as a business was engaged as a business correspondent/commission agent for entities including Axis Bank correspondent/commission agent for entities includi correspondent/commission agent for entities includi Ltd., Suvidha Infoserve Pvt. Ltd., and MOS Utility Pvt. Ltd. etc, and Ltd., Suvidha Infoserve Pvt. Ltd., and MOS Utility Pvt. Ltd. Ltd., Suvidha Infoserve Pvt. Ltd., and MOS Utility Pvt. Ltd. in that capacity, collected cash from customers and facilitated its in that capacity, collected cash from customers and facilitated its in that capacity, collected cash from customers and facilitated its deposit into the accounts of the respective companies, receiving deposit into the accounts of the respective companies, receiving deposit into the accounts of the respective companies, receiving commission income in return. commission income in return.
3.1 The appellant/assessee /assessee filed his return of income for the filed his return of income for the assessment year under consideration on 25.04.2014, declaring total assessment year under consideration on 25.04.2014, declaring total assessment year under consideration on 25.04.2014, declaring total income of ₹3,07,390/ 3,07,390/-. The return was selected for scrutiny, and . The return was selected for scrutiny, and statutory notices under the Act under the Act were issued and complied with. were issued and complied with. Upon completion of assessment on 28.03.2016, the Assessing etion of assessment on 28.03.2016, the Assessing etion of assessment on 28.03.2016, the Assessing Officer made two additions: Officer made two additions:
(i) ₹86,539/-, received allegedly as a final settlement from M/s , received allegedly as a final settlement from M/s , received allegedly as a final settlement from M/s PAN India Network Ltd.; and PAN India Network Ltd.; and (ii) ₹6,66,475/-, estimated to be commission income @5% on , estimated to be commission income @5% on , estimated to be commission income @5% on total cash deposits of total cash deposits of ₹1,33,29,500/- made in the assessee’s made in the assessee’s bank account.
3.2 Both additions were sustained by the CIT(A). Aggrieved, the Both additions were sustained by the CIT(A). Aggrieved, the Both additions were sustained by the CIT(A). Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal assessee carried the matter in appeal before us, by way of raising before us, by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. grounds as reproduced above.
The ground No. The ground No. 1 of the appeal relates to addition made by the ition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of sum of Rs.86,539/- which was Assessing Officer in respect of sum of Rs.86,539/ Assessing Officer in respect of sum of Rs.86,539/ allegedly paid by a company namely PAN India Networks Ltd. to the by a company namely PAN India Networks Ltd. to the by a company namely PAN India Networks Ltd. to the assessee as full and final settlement assessee as full and final settlement of agency business of agency business.
4.1 The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 133(6) of the Act to PAN India Network Ltd. to notice under Section 133(6) of the Act to PAN India Network Ltd. to notice under Section 133(6) of the Act to PAN India Network Ltd. to verify the assessee’s transactions. The said entity responded, verify the assessee’s transactions. The said entity responded, verify the assessee’s transactions. The said entity responded, confirming that a sum of confirming that a sum of ₹86,539/- was paid as a full and final settlement to a retailer account maintained in the name of M/s settlement to a retailer account maintained in the name of M/s settlement to a retailer account maintained in the name of M/s Decent Electronics, which was linked to the PAN of the assessee. Decent Electronics, which was linked to the PAN of the assessee. Decent Electronics, which was linked to the PAN of the assessee. On the strength of this confirmation, the Assessing Officer treated On the strength of this confirmation, the Assessing Officer treated On the strength of this confirmation, the Assessing Officer treated the said amount as undisclosed income and the said amount as undisclosed income and made the addition. made the addition.
4.2 The assessee contended that he was not the proprietor of M/s The assessee contended that he was not the proprietor of M/s The assessee contended that he was not the proprietor of M/s Decent Electronics, nor had he received such amount in his bank Decent Electronics, nor had he received such amount in his bank Decent Electronics, nor had he received such amount in his bank account. It was also submitted that the remitting entity (PAN India account. It was also submitted that the remitting entity (PAN India account. It was also submitted that the remitting entity (PAN India Network Ltd.) was under liquidation, and Network Ltd.) was under liquidation, and it was not possible to it was not possible to obtain further confirmation. Reference was made to Form 26AS, obtain further confirmation. Reference was made to Form 26AS, obtain further confirmation. Reference was made to Form 26AS, which showed no credit of the said amount. These submissions, which showed no credit of the said amount. These submissions, which showed no credit of the said amount. These submissions, however, were rejected by the CIT(A), primarily on the ground that however, were rejected by the CIT(A), primarily on the ground that however, were rejected by the CIT(A), primarily on the ground that the assessee had not furnished any docume the assessee had not furnished any documentary evidence to ntary evidence to dislodge the third-party confirmation. party confirmation. The relevant finding of ld The relevant finding of ld CIT(A) is reproduced as under CIT(A) is reproduced as under:
“4.1.3 Analysis and Rejection of the Appellant’s “4.1.3 Analysis and Rejection of the Appellant’s “4.1.3 Analysis and Rejection of the Appellant’s Arguments a) Fallure to Provide Evidence Against PAN India a) Fallure to Provide Evidence Against PAN India a) Fallure to Provide Evidence Against PAN India Network Limited's Confirmation Network Limited's Confirmation The appellant's mere denial of ownership of M/s. Decent The appellant's mere denial of ownership of M/s. Decent The appellant's mere denial of ownership of M/s. Decent Electronics does not hold weight in the absence of any Electronics does not hold weight in the absence of any Electronics does not hold weight in the absence of any documentary proof. The AO's reliance on a third documentary proof. The AO's reliance on a third documentary proof. The AO's reliance on a third-party confirmation from PAN India Network Limited is a valid confirmation from PAN India Network Limited is a valid confirmation from PAN India Network Limited is a valid exercise u/s 133(6) of the Income exercise u/s 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which x Act, 1961, which empowers the AO to seek independent confirmation. The empowers the AO to seek independent confirmation. The empowers the AO to seek independent confirmation. The company categorically confirmed the existence of M/s. company categorically confirmed the existence of M/s. company categorically confirmed the existence of M/s. Decent Electronics with the appellant's PAN, which was Decent Electronics with the appellant's PAN, which was Decent Electronics with the appellant's PAN, which was sufficient ground to conclude that the appellant had received sufficient ground to conclude that the appellant had received sufficient ground to conclude that the appellant had received the amount. b) No Alternative Evidence Provided b) No Alternative Evidence Provided The appellant failed to provide any documents such as The appellant failed to provide any documents such as The appellant failed to provide any documents such as correspondence, legal agreements, or affidavits contradicting correspondence, legal agreements, or affidavits contradicting correspondence, legal agreements, or affidavits contradicting the third-party confirmation. He did not provide any party confirmation. He did not provide any party confirmation. He did not provide any explanation, nor did he submit any alternative plea explanation, nor did he submit any alternative plea explanation, nor did he submit any alternative plea or agrument. c) Rebuttal to the Claim that Rs. 86,539/ c) Rebuttal to the Claim that Rs. 86,539/- Was Not Was Not Credited to the Bank Account Credited to the Bank Account The appellant's argument that the amount was not credited The appellant's argument that the amount was not credited The appellant's argument that the amount was not credited to his bank account is irrelevant unless he demonstrates that to his bank account is irrelevant unless he demonstrates that to his bank account is irrelevant unless he demonstrates that he never received the amount in any other he never received the amount in any other form or other form or other transactions. The AO, relying on the ledger copies and transactions. The AO, relying on the ledger copies and transactions. The AO, relying on the ledger copies and transaction records provided by PAN India Network Limited, transaction records provided by PAN India Network Limited, transaction records provided by PAN India Network Limited, rightly concluded that the appellant had received the amount. rightly concluded that the appellant had received the amount. rightly concluded that the appellant had received the amount. d) AO's Rellance on Sections 133(6) and 271(1)(c) d) AO's Rellance on Sections 133(6) and 271(1)(c) The AO was just The AO was justified in making the addition based on third ified in making the addition based on third- party records, which the appellant failed to disprove. Since party records, which the appellant failed to disprove. Since party records, which the appellant failed to disprove. Since the appellant did not disclose the amount voluntarily, penalty the appellant did not disclose the amount voluntarily, penalty the appellant did not disclose the amount voluntarily, penalty proceedings /s 271(1)(c) for concealment proceedings /s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income were income were righty initiated. righty initiated.”
We have perused the material on record perused the material on record including the paper book including the paper book containing pages 1 to 10 containing pages 1 to 10. While the confirmation from PAN India . While the confirmation from PAN India Network Ltd. may prima facie suggest linkage of the impugned Network Ltd. may prima facie suggest linkage of the impugned Network Ltd. may prima facie suggest linkage of the impugned payment with the assessee’s PAN, it is a settled principle that no payment with the assessee’s PAN, it is a settled principle that no payment with the assessee’s PAN, it is a settled principle that no addition can be sustained merely on account of a third can be sustained merely on account of a third can be sustained merely on account of a third-party entry unless the same is corroborated by receipt in the hands of the unless the same is corroborated by receipt in the hands of the unless the same is corroborated by receipt in the hands of the assessee. In the absence of any proof of actual credit to the assessee. In the absence of any proof of actual credit to the assessee. In the absence of any proof of actual credit to the assessee—whether in cash or through bank whether in cash or through bank—the addition cannot the addition cannot be upheld without further verification. ithout further verification.
5.1 We are of the view that the matter requires further factual We are of the view that the matter requires further factual We are of the view that the matter requires further factual ascertainment, particularly: (i) whether the payment of ₹86,539/- ascertainment, particularly: (i) whether the payment of ascertainment, particularly: (i) whether the payment of was, in fact, received by the assessee; (ii) the nature and ownership was, in fact, received by the assessee; (ii) the nature and ownership was, in fact, received by the assessee; (ii) the nature and ownership of M/s Decent Electronics; of M/s Decent Electronics; and (iii) whether any banking channel and (iii) whether any banking channel reflects transmission of such funds to the assessee. Accordingly, reflects transmission of such funds to the assessee. Accordingly, reflects transmission of such funds to the assessee. Accordingly, this ground is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, who shall this ground is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, who shall this ground is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, who shall conduct a thorough verification, including inquiries with the conduct a thorough verification, including inquiries with the conduct a thorough verification, including inquiries with the bankers of PAN India Network Ltd., to ascertain to whom and how ia Network Ltd., to ascertain to whom and how ia Network Ltd., to ascertain to whom and how the payment was made, and whether M/s Decent Electronics was at the payment was made, and whether M/s Decent Electronics was at the payment was made, and whether M/s Decent Electronics was at any time a proprietary concern of the assessee or otherwise any time a proprietary concern of the assessee or otherwise any time a proprietary concern of the assessee or otherwise connected to him. The Assessing Officer shall then decide the issue connected to him. The Assessing Officer shall then decide the issue connected to him. The Assessing Officer shall then decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. ce with law.The ground No. 1 of the appeal of the The ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
The second addition concerns cash deposits amounting to The second addition concerns cash deposits amounting to The second addition concerns cash deposits amounting to ₹1,33,29,500/- made into the assessee’s savings bank account, made into the assessee’s savings bank account, made into the assessee’s savings bank account, claimed to be in respect o claimed to be in respect of collections on behalf of the f collections on behalf of the aforementioned companies. It is the assessee’s case that these aforementioned companies. It is the assessee’s case that these aforementioned companies. It is the assessee’s case that these amounts were subsequently withdrawn and transferred to the amounts were subsequently withdrawn and transferred to the amounts were subsequently withdrawn and transferred to the respective companies, and that he was acting merely as a business respective companies, and that he was acting merely as a business respective companies, and that he was acting merely as a business correspondent. But on verification by But on verification by the Assessing Officer u/s the Assessing Officer u/s 133(6) of the Act, the Assessing Officer observed that out of 133(6) of the Act, the Assessing Officer observed that 133(6) of the Act, the Assessing Officer observed that companies for whom cash was collected and claimed to an companies for whom cash was collected and claimed to an companies for whom cash was collected and claimed to an authorised commission agent, Suvidha Infoserve Pvt. Ltd. and FINO authorised commission agent, Suvidha Infoserve Pvt. Ltd. and FINO authorised commission agent, Suvidha Infoserve Pvt. Ltd. and FINO Fintech Fiundation (FFF) did not respond to t Fintech Fiundation (FFF) did not respond to the Assessing Officer. he Assessing Officer. The PAN India network replied that they were into online gaming The PAN India network replied that they were into online gaming The PAN India network replied that they were into online gaming business and M/s Decent Electronics ( having PAN of assess) was business and M/s Decent Electronics ( having PAN of assess) was business and M/s Decent Electronics ( having PAN of assess) was their retailer agent and agency was cancelled. From the agreement their retailer agent and agency was cancelled. From the agreement their retailer agent and agency was cancelled. From the agreement with MOS Utility Pvt. Ltd. MOS Utility Pvt. Ltd. and FINO Fintech Foundation provided ntech Foundation provided by the assessee, it was was observed that the agreements produced by the agreements produced by the assessee did not authorize him to collect and deposit cash in his the assessee did not authorize him to collect and deposit cash in his the assessee did not authorize him to collect and deposit cash in his personal bank account. In the absence of detailed customer-wise or personal bank account. In the absence of detailed customer personal bank account. In the absence of detailed customer transaction-wise reconciliat wise reconciliation, the Assessing Officer estimated 5% ion, the Assessing Officer estimated 5% of total deposits as unexplained income under Section 68 of the Act. of total deposits as unexplained income under Section 68 of the Act. of total deposits as unexplained income under Section 68 of the Act.
6.1 The ld CIT(A) affirmed the addition, observing that the CIT(A) affirmed the addition, observing that the CIT(A) affirmed the addition, observing that the assessee had not produced customer details, transaction logs, or assessee had not produced customer details, transaction logs, or assessee had not produced customer details, transaction logs, or other contemporaneous records to substantiate the claim that the other contemporaneous records to substantiate the claim that the other contemporaneous records to substantiate the claim that the deposits were entirely on behalf of third parties. Further, the ld deposits were entirely on behalf of third parties. Further, the deposits were entirely on behalf of third parties. Further, the CIT(A) found that the confirmation letter relied upon by the nd that the confirmation letter relied upon by the nd that the confirmation letter relied upon by the assessee from MOS Utility Pvt. Ltd. lacked specific transaction assessee from MOS Utility Pvt. Ltd. lacked specific transaction assessee from MOS Utility Pvt. Ltd. lacked specific transaction details and was not filed at the assessment stage. the Ld. CIT(A) details and was not filed at the assessment stage. details and was not filed at the assessment stage. after considering the submission of the assessee rejected the after considering the submission of the assessee rejected the after considering the submission of the assessee rejected the contention observing as under: serving as under:
“4.2.3 Analysts and Rejection of 2.3 Analysts and Rejection of the Appellant’s Appellant’s Arguments a) Failure to Provide Evidence Supporting Cash Deposits a) Failure to Provide Evidence Supporting Cash Deposits a) Failure to Provide Evidence Supporting Cash Deposits as Third-Party Transactions Party Transactions The appellant claimed that all, cash deposits were received The appellant claimed that all, cash deposits were received The appellant claimed that all, cash deposits were received from customers for onward transfer to their bank from customers for onward transfer to their bank accounts accounts, However he failed he failed to provide even basic details of these to provide even basic details of these customers, such as names, customers, such as names, account numbers, transaction transaction records, or bank slips , or bank slips The AO had explicitly asked, for customer details, a The AO had explicitly asked, for customer details, a The AO had explicitly asked, for customer details, a account numbers, and specific cash , and specific cash transaction logs during the transaction logs during the assessment. The appellant's refusal to furnish these details assessment. The appellant's refusal to furnish these details assessment. The appellant's refusal to furnish these details weakens weakens his weakens his claim his claim claim and raises and and raises raises doubts doubts regarding doubts regarding regarding the the the genuineness of these deposits genuineness of these deposits. If these transactions were . If these transactions were legitimate, the appellant should have been able to provide a legitimate, the appellant should have been able to provide a legitimate, the appellant should have been able to provide a ledger or customer logs, but he failed to do so. ledger or customer logs, but he failed to do so. b) Contradiction in the Assessee's Business Model b) Contradiction in the Assessee's Business Model b) Contradiction in the Assessee's Business Model While the appellant claimed to be acting as a business While the appellant claimed to be acting as a business While the appellant claimed to be acting as a business corresponden correspondent, the agreements with the concerned companies t, the agreements with the concerned companies did not support this claim. The AO correctly pointed out that did not support this claim. The AO correctly pointed out that did not support this claim. The AO correctly pointed out that the agreements did not authorize the appellant to collect cash the agreements did not authorize the appellant to collect cash the agreements did not authorize the appellant to collect cash from customers and deposit it into their accounts. The from customers and deposit it into their accounts. The from customers and deposit it into their accounts. The appellant failed to provide a appellant failed to provide any additional documentary ny additional documentary evidence (agreements, correspondence, or business logs) to evidence (agreements, correspondence, or business logs) to evidence (agreements, correspondence, or business logs) to counter this finding. counter this finding. c) Rebuttal to the Claim that the AO Did Not Seek c) Rebuttal to the Claim that the AO Did Not Seek c) Rebuttal to the Claim that the AO Did Not Seek Specific Cash Deposit Details Specific Cash Deposit Details The appellant's claim that the AO never asked for specific The appellant's claim that the AO never asked for specific The appellant's claim that the AO never asked for specific details is incorrect. The AO issued multiple notices u/s 133(6) s incorrect. The AO issued multiple notices u/s 133(6) s incorrect. The AO issued multiple notices u/s 133(6) and a show-cause letter on 02.03.2016, specifically asking the cause letter on 02.03.2016, specifically asking the cause letter on 02.03.2016, specifically asking the appellant to provide transaction details. The appellant did not appellant to provide transaction details. The appellant did not appellant to provide transaction details. The appellant did not comply with this requirement. comply with this requirement. Additionally, the AO recorded the appellant' Additionally, the AO recorded the appellant's statement u/s s statement u/s 131, where he was again asked to provide supporting details. 131, where he was again asked to provide supporting details. 131, where he was again asked to provide supporting details. His response remained vague and unsupported by evidence. His response remained vague and unsupported by evidence. His response remained vague and unsupported by evidence. d) MOS Utility Pvt. Ltd.'s Confirmation Letter Is Not d) MOS Utility Pvt. Ltd.'s Confirmation Letter Is Not d) MOS Utility Pvt. Ltd.'s Confirmation Letter Is Not Sufficient to Prove the Legitimacy of Cash Deposits Sufficient to Prove the Legitimacy of Cash Deposits Sufficient to Prove the Legitimacy of Cash Deposits The appellant ar The appellant argued that MOS Utility Pvt. Ltd. had provided a gued that MOS Utility Pvt. Ltd. had provided a confirmation letter validating his transactions. However, this confirmation letter validating his transactions. However, this confirmation letter validating his transactions. However, this letter was not submitted during the assessment, which did not letter was not submitted during the assessment, which did not letter was not submitted during the assessment, which did not contain any specific transaction details, deposit records, or contain any specific transaction details, deposit records, or contain any specific transaction details, deposit records, or confirmations of the a confirmations of the amounts deposited. Also did not confirm mounts deposited. Also did not confirm that the appellant was authorized to collect cash on behalf of that the appellant was authorized to collect cash on behalf of that the appellant was authorized to collect cash on behalf of customers. As such, the confirmation letter does not hold customers. As such, the confirmation letter does not hold customers. As such, the confirmation letter does not hold sufficient evidentiary value to counter the AO's findings. sufficient evidentiary value to counter the AO's findings. sufficient evidentiary value to counter the AO's findings. e) The 5% Addition Was Reasonable and e) The 5% Addition Was Reasonable and Based on Facts Based on Facts The appellant argued that the addition of 5% as unexplained The appellant argued that the addition of 5% as unexplained The appellant argued that the addition of 5% as unexplained income was arbitrary. However, the AO did not make an income was arbitrary. However, the AO did not make an income was arbitrary. However, the AO did not make an arbitrary estimation. Instead, he: arbitrary estimation. Instead, he:
1. 1. Considered the total deposits of Rs. 1,33,29,500/ 1. Considered the total deposits of Rs. 1,33,29,500/ 2. Factored in 2. Factored in corresponding withdrawals indicating indicating that a part of the deposits was part of the deposits was legitimate.
3. Determined that at least 5% of the total deposits were 3. Determined that at least 5% of the total deposits were 3. Determined that at least 5% of the total deposits were unexplained, in the absence of supporting docume unexplained, in the absence of supporting documentation. ntation.
Since the appellant failed to provide evidence to establish the Since the appellant failed to provide evidence to establish the Since the appellant failed to provide evidence to establish the exact source of exact source of funds, the AO was justified in estimating a funds, the AO was justified in estimating a reasonable proportion as unexplained cash reasonable proportion as unexplained cash credits u/s u/s 68.” 6.2 Before us, the assessee submitted that he had acted solely as Before us, the assessee submitted that he had acted solely as Before us, the assessee submitted that he had acted solely as a facilitator for the companies concerned and was paid a fixed a facilitator for the companies concerned and was paid a fixed a facilitator for the companies concerned and was paid a fixed commission. It was conte commission. It was contended that corresponding withdrawals and nded that corresponding withdrawals and transfers to company accounts were ignored and that the 5% transfers to company accounts were ignored and that the 5% transfers to company accounts were ignored and that the 5% estimation was arbitrary. estimation was arbitrary.
We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. The Assessing Officer though has the relevant materials on record. The Assessing Officer though has the relevant materials on record. The Assessing Officer though has accepted the modus operendi of the assessee cepted the modus operendi of the assessee of collecting cash and collecting cash and withdrawing the same for further deposit to the accounts of withdrawing the same for further deposit to the withdrawing the same for further deposit to the respective companies, b respective companies, but the assessee was required to reconcile ut the assessee was required to reconcile whether the amount of Rs.1,33,29,500/ whether the amount of Rs.1,33,29,500/- deposited in his saving deposited in his saving bank account was already considered while working out the k account was already considered while working out the k account was already considered while working out the commission in respect of deposits collected from customers commission in respect of deposits collected from customers commission in respect of deposits collected from customers pertaining to the three companies. pertaining to the three companies. The assessee has not The assessee has not demonstrated that the total deposits of demonstrated that the total deposits of ₹1,33,29,500/ 1,33,29,500/- were fully accounted for while accounted for while computing commission income. computing commission income. No such reconciliation was provided by the assessee before the lower reconciliation was provided by the assessee before the lower reconciliation was provided by the assessee before the lower authorities. In the absence of reconciliation, the estimation of In the absence of reconciliation, the estimation of In the absence of reconciliation, the estimation of unexplained income cannot be said to be wholly without basis. unexplained income cannot be said to be wholly without basis. unexplained income cannot be said to be wholly without basis. Therefore, in the facts and ci Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case rcumstances of the case and in the interest of substantial justice interest of substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to restore this , we feel it appropriate to restore this matter also back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the matter also back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the matter also back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to the assessee for filing the assessee for filing reconciliation as how the amount how the amount of Rs.1,33,29,500/- deposited in the bank account has already deposited in the bank account has already been considered while working out the commission received from been considered while working out the commission received from been considered while working out the commission received from relevant companies. companies. The assessee shall furnish a detailed The assessee shall furnish a detailed reconciliation showing how the cash deposits relate to specific reconciliation showing how the cash deposits relate to spe reconciliation showing how the cash deposits relate to spe customer transactions on behalf of the named companies and customer transactions on behalf of the named companies and customer transactions on behalf of the named companies and whether such amounts were already included while computing whether such amounts were already included while computing whether such amounts were already included while computing commission income. The Assessing Officer shall verify the commission income. The Assessing Officer shall verify the commission income. The Assessing Officer shall verify the reconciliation and pass a reasoned order thereafter. The ground No. reconciliation and pass a reasoned order thereafter. reconciliation and pass a reasoned order thereafter. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is also accordingly allowed for he appeal of the assessee is also accordingly allowed for he appeal of the assessee is also accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. statistical purposes.