DILIP GULAB RAUT,DHULE vs. ADDL JCI A DELHI, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

That the learned CIT(A) failed to consider the supporting documents proving that the deposits were used for prepaid recharges on the Vakrangee portal.

That the learned CIT(A) erred in considering Rs.9,000 as commission income based on an arbitrary calculation rather than actual commission received.

That the learned CIT(A) erred in treating Rs.8,277 as unexplained income despite clear records from Form 26AS showing actual commission earnings and TDS deductions.

That the additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) are excessive, arbitrary, and not based on proper appreciating of the facts.

That the assessment order passed u/s.144 is against the principles of natural justice as the appellant was not given proper opportunity to explain the nature of transactions.

That the appellant reserves the right to amend, modify, or add additional grounds at the time of hearing.”

The ld.AR for the Assessee filed paper book. Ld. AR submitted that the Assessee was a Business Correspondent Agent of the union Bank of India appointed by Vakranjee Ltd for providing Banking facility in Rural areas. The amount of cash deposited was belonging to Customers and it was collected on behalf of customers. Ld.AR took us through the Bank Statement to demonstrate that amount of Rs.2,21,000/- was deposited on 02/12/2016 and then on 30/12/2016 Rs.1,00,000/- was transferred by NEFT to Vakarangi which is seen in the Bank statement. Similarly there are other Transfers as seen in the statement. Therefore, Ld.AR pleaded that addition may be deleted. Ld.AR submitted that assessee is a Business Correspondent has been ITA No.517/PUN/2025[A]

Ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the Order of the AO and CIT(A).

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, Assessing Officer (AO) has noted that the Assessee had not filed Return of Income and there were cash deposits during demonetization. Hence the AO issued notices. Assessee failed to comply but the Assessing Officer u/s 133(6) of the Act obtained information from Union Bank of India. The Union Bank of India confirmed that assessee was their Business Correspondent. However, the AO noted that the Assessee has deposited Rs.2,21,000/- during demonetization in his savings account. Therefore, the AO made addition of Rs.2,21,000/- and also added Rs. 9,000/- as Commission. Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition.

We have studied the relevant saving bank statement. It is noted that on 2/12/2016 Rs.2,20,000/- was deposited then again on 2/12/2016 Rs.1,000/- was deposited in cash . Then there are transfers to Vakrangi on 30/12/2012 of Rs.1,00,000/-. Thus it is established that the amount which was deposited was transferred to Vakrangi. Also there are similar transfer of smaller amounts. In ITA No.517/PUN/2025[A]

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, “एस एम सी” बच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,