JEEVAN JAVERCHAND RATHOD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 31(2)(1), MUMBAI

2 The assessee co Decent Electronics, n account. It was also Network Ltd.) was u obtain further confir which showed no cr however, were rejecte the assessee had n dislodge the third-p CIT(A) is reproduced “4.1.3 Ana Arguments a) Fallure Network Lim The appellan Electronics d documentary confirmation exercise u/s empowers th company cat Decent Electr sufficient grou the amount. b) No Alterna The appellan corresponden the third-par explanation, agrument. c) Rebuttal Credited to t Jeev ITA ontended that he was not the pr nor had he received such amou submitted that the remitting en under liquidation, and it was rmation. Reference was made redit of the said amount. Thes ed by the CIT(A), primarily on t not furnished any documenta arty confirmation. The relevan as under: lysis and Rejection of the Appe to Provide Evidence Against PAN mited's Confirmation nt's mere denial of ownership of M/s. does not hold weight in the absence proof. The AO's reliance on a thir from PAN India Network Limited is a 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, he AO to seek independent confirmatio tegorically confirmed the existence of ronics with the appellant's PAN, whic und to conclude that the appellant had r ative Evidence Provided nt failed to provide any documents s nce, legal agreements, or affidavits contra rty confirmation. He did not provid nor did he submit any alternative p to the Claim that Rs. 86,539/- Wa the Bank Account van Javerchand Rathod 4 A No. 3592/MUM/2025 roprietor of M/s unt in his bank ntity (PAN India not possible to to Form 26AS, se submissions, the ground that ary evidence to nt finding of ld ellant’s India Decent of any rd-party a valid which on. The f M/s. ch was received uch as adicting de any plea or as Not The appellant to his bank ac he never rec transactions. transaction re rightly conclu d) AO's Rella The AO was j party records the appellant proceedings / righty initiate 5. We have perused t containing pages 1 t Network Ltd. may p payment with the as addition can be sust unless the same is assessee. In the ab assessee—whether in be upheld without fu 5.1 We are of the v ascertainment, partic was, in fact, received of M/s Decent Elect reflects transmission this ground is restore conduct a thorough Jeev ITA t's argument that the amount was not c ccount is irrelevant unless he demonstrat ceived the amount in any other form o The AO, relying on the ledger copie ecords provided by PAN India Network L ded that the appellant had received the a ance on Sections 133(6) and 271(1)(c) justified in making the addition based o s, which the appellant failed to disprove did not disclose the amount voluntarily, p /s 271(1)(c) for concealment of incom d.” the material on record including to 10. While the confirmation prima facie suggest linkage of ssessee’s PAN, it is a settled p ained merely on account of a th corroborated by receipt in th bsence of any proof of actua n cash or through bank—the a rther verification. view that the matter requires cularly: (i) whether the paymen d by the assessee; (ii) the nature ronics; and (iii) whether any b n of such funds to the assesse ed to the file of the Assessing O h verification, including inqu van Javerchand Rathod 5 A No. 3592/MUM/2025 credited tes that or other es and Limited, amount. n third- e. Since penalty e were g the paper book from PAN India f the impugned rinciple that no hird-party entry he hands of the al credit to the addition cannot further factual nt of ₹86,539/- e and ownership banking channel ee. Accordingly, fficer, who shall uiries with the bankers of PAN India the payment was mad any time a proprie connected to him. Th afresh in accordance assessee is according 6. The second ad ₹1,33,29,500/- mad claimed to be in aforementioned com amounts were subs respective companies correspondent. But 133(6) of the Act, companies for who authorised commissi Fintech Fiundation ( The PAN India netwo business and M/s D their retailer agent an with MOS Utility Pv by the assessee, it w the assessee did not personal bank accou Jeev ITA a Network Ltd., to ascertain to de, and whether M/s Decent Ele etary concern of the assesse he Assessing Officer shall then d with law.The ground No. 1 of th gly allowed for statistical purpos ddition concerns cash deposits e into the assessee’s savings respect of collections on mpanies. It is the assessee’s c sequently withdrawn and tran s, and that he was acting merel on verification by the Assess the Assessing Officer observe m cash was collected and on agent, Suvidha Infoserve Pvt FFF) did not respond to the As ork replied that they were into Decent Electronics ( having PAN nd agency was cancelled. From vt. Ltd. and FINO Fintech Foun was observed that the agreemen authorize him to collect and dep unt. In the absence of detailed cu van Javerchand Rathod 6 A No. 3592/MUM/2025 whom and how ectronics was at e or otherwise decide the issue he appeal of the ses. s amounting to bank account, behalf of the case that these nsferred to the ly as a business ing Officer u/s ed that out of claimed to an t. Ltd. and FINO ssessing Officer. o online gaming N of assess) was m the agreement ndation provided nts produced by posit cash in his ustomer-wise or transaction-wise reco of total deposits as un 6.1 The ld CIT(A) assessee had not pr other contemporaneo deposits were entire CIT(A) found that assessee from MOS details and was not after considering th contention observing “4.2.3 Ana Arguments a) Failure to as Third-Par The appellan from custome However he customers, s records, or ba The AO had numbers, an assessment. weakens his genuineness legitimate, th ledger or cust b) Contradic While the ap corresponden Jeev ITA onciliation, the Assessing Office nexplained income under Sectio affirmed the addition, obse roduced customer details, tran ous records to substantiate the ly on behalf of third parties. the confirmation letter relied Utility Pvt. Ltd. lacked spec filed at the assessment stage. he submission of the assesse as under: alysts and Rejection of the App o Provide Evidence Supporting Cash D rty Transactions nt claimed that all, cash deposits were ers for onward transfer to their bank a failed to provide even basic details such as names, account numbers, tra ank slips explicitly asked, for customer details, a nd specific cash transaction logs du The appellant's refusal to furnish these s claim and raises doubts regard of these deposits. If these transactio e appellant should have been able to p tomer logs, but he failed to do so. tion in the Assessee's Business Model ppellant claimed to be acting as a b nt, the agreements with the concerned co van Javerchand Rathod 7 A No. 3592/MUM/2025 er estimated 5% on 68 of the Act. erving that the saction logs, or e claim that the Further, the ld d upon by the cific transaction . the Ld. CIT(A) ee rejected the pellant’s Deposits received accounts, of these ansaction a account ring the e details ding the ns were provide a l business ompanies did not suppo the agreemen from custom appellant fa evidence (agr counter this fi c) Rebuttal Specific Cas The appellan details is inco and a show-c appellant to p comply with t Additionally, 131, where h His response d) MOS Util Sufficient to The appellant confirmation letter was not contain any confirmations that the appe customers. A sufficient evid e) The 5% Ad The appellant income was arbitrary estim 1. Considered 2. Factored i part of the dep 3. Determine unexplained, Jeev ITA ort this claim. The AO correctly pointed nts did not authorize the appellant to coll mers and deposit it into their accoun iled to provide any additional docu reements, correspondence, or business inding. to the Claim that the AO Did No sh Deposit Details nt's claim that the AO never asked for orrect. The AO issued multiple notices u/ cause letter on 02.03.2016, specifically as provide transaction details. The appellan this requirement. the AO recorded the appellant's statem he was again asked to provide supporting remained vague and unsupported by evi lity Pvt. Ltd.'s Confirmation Letter o Prove the Legitimacy of Cash Deposi t argued that MOS Utility Pvt. Ltd. had pr letter validating his transactions. Howe t submitted during the assessment, which specific transaction details, deposit rec s of the amounts deposited. Also did not ellant was authorized to collect cash on As such, the confirmation letter does n dentiary value to counter the AO's findings ddition Was Reasonable and Based on t argued that the addition of 5% as une arbitrary. However, the AO did not m mation. Instead, he: d the total deposits of Rs. 1,33,29,500/ in corresponding withdrawals indicating posits was legitimate. d that at least 5% of the total depos in the absence of supporting documentati van Javerchand Rathod 8 A No. 3592/MUM/2025 out that lect cash nts. The umentary logs) to ot Seek r specific /s 133(6) sking the nt did not ment u/s g details. dence. r Is Not its rovided a ever, this h did not cords, or t confirm behalf of not hold s. n Facts explained make an g that a sits were ion.