RUDRESH DANDI HANUMANTHAPPA,MALEBENNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DAVANAGERE

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 11/09/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2024-25/1068582172(1) for the assessment year 2017-18.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], confirming the addition of ₹59,69,835 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained money.

Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is an individual who was engaged in collecting cash from the sale of tickets at Sangam Talkies, allegedly on behalf of Shri M.N. Kumar. The assessee deposited these collections in his bank account and subsequently transferred the same, after deducting his commission, to Shri M.N. Kumar or other distributors on behalf of Shri M.N. Kumar. It was submitted that the cash deposits represent such ticket sale collections, which were ultimately accounted for and offered to tax by Shri M.N. Kumar.

However, the AO made the addition under section 69A of the Act, treating the cash deposits as unexplained, on the grounds that the assessee failed to furnish the requisite details such as: • The source of each cash deposit entry in the bank; • Proof of authorization to collect cash on behalf of the theatre; • Correlation between the cash deposits and subsequent remittances; • Daily ticket sale collections.

On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO’s action, noting that while the assessee produced a confirmation from Shri M.N. Kumar and a copy of his own bank statement, he failed to establish the genuineness of the ticket sales or provide evidence from Shri M.N. Kumar’s bank account corroborating the remittances.

Being aggrieved by the order of learned CIT-A, the assessee is in appeal before us.

Before us, the learned AR submitted that the cash collected was duly reflected in the books of Shri M.N. Kumar and offered to tax. A paper book was filed containing, inter alia, ITR acknowledgments, financial statements of Shri M.N. Kumar, and ledger accounts reflecting the alleged collections. The learned AR pleaded that the matter may be restored to the file of the AO for a fresh examination, with liberty to furnish additional evidence.

On the other hand, the learned DR did not object to the matter being remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication as per law.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and materials available on record. Considering the nature of the claim and the documentary evidence now proposed to be submitted by the assessee, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the matter is restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the AO with the following directions: • The AO shall verify and reconcile the source of cash deposits in the assessee’s bank account with reference to the ticket sale collections and subsequent fund transfers.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.