Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM
This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 05.06.2024 for the AY 2018-19.
The only issue raised by the Revenue in various grounds of appeal is against admitting fresh evidences by ld CIT(A) without calling for the remand report which are in contravention of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1963 (‘the Rules’).
The facts in brief are that the assessee is a non-filer of return and as per order u/s 148A(d) of the Act dated 26.03.2022, there were financial transactions of ₹1,95,16,338/- by the assessee and a. Cash withdrawals through bearers cheque amounting to ₹1,93,26,069/-
b. Contract receipts from Save Solutions Pvt. Ltd. amounting to ₹1,90,269/-.
Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 26.02.2022, which was complied with by the assessee by filing the return of income on 19.04.2022, declaring total income of ₹2,23,660/-. Thereafter, the statutory notices were duly served upon the assessee. However, there was no response from the assessee and finally, the ld. AO assessed the income at ₹1,97,40,000/- by making an addition of (i) cash withdrawals of ₹1,93,26,069/- as unexplained money and (2) ₹1,90,269/- in respect of contractual receipt.
In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing and holding as under:-
“4. During the course of appeal proceedings, hearing notices were sent. In response, the appellant stated that he was appointed as Customer Service Point Agent (CSP Agent) by Save Solution Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of State Bank of India and all the credits and debits were pertaining to the customers. The appellant provided the certificate, Copy of the Bank Statement, Details of Commission Earned, Profit and Loss Account and Computation of Income. The details are as under:
From the details filed by the appellant it is noticed that the AO added a sum ofRs. 1,93,26,069/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act without conducting anyenquiries. When the appellant withdraw money from the bank account it cannot betreated as unexplained money u/s 69 A of the IT Act. Bank withdrawal cannot beunexplained money. The AO ought to have verified the sources of credits into thebank accounts. In this case, the source was transfer entries credited into his bankaccount as the appellant acted as CSP agent on behalf of Save Solutions Pvt Ltd.This sum only withdrawn and given to the respective customers. Hence, addition ofunexplained money of Rs.1,93,26,029/- is not maintainable as it was not unexplained money.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25.03.2025.