ALPESH SURESHBHAI PATEL,SADHLI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VADODARA, VADODARA

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri Alpesh Sureshhbhai Patel, did not file a return of income for A.Y. 2012-13. As per the AIR information available with the Department, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 59,07,020/- in his bank account with State Bank of India during the financial year 2011-12. On the basis of this information, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. Despite service of notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee did not file any return of income nor did he furnish any explanation regarding the source of the cash deposits. In the absence of compliance on part of the assessee, the Assessing Officer treated the entire cash deposits of Rs. 59,07,020/- as unexplained income under section 69A of the Act.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In the statement of facts, the assessee submitted that he was engaged in the business of commission agency for Vodafone SIM cards and recharge coupons and that the cash deposits was from his business receipts. The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking section 144 of the Act and treating the entire cash deposits as unexplained, since the deposits were attributable to business activity and only the net profit element could have been brought to I.T.A No. 1290/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2012-13 lakh in his bank account and had neither filed any return of income nor any supporting documents to reconcile the deposits with his stated business activities. The claim that the deposits represented business receipts of his commission agency was not accepted by CIT(A) in the absence of any corroborative evidence such as bills, invoices, confirmations, or books of account showing such receipts from sale of SIM cards. Ld. CIT(A) held that the contention of the assessee that only net profit at 1% of turnover should be taxed was also rejected for want of any supporting material having been furnished by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) further held that since the assessee had remained non-compliant during assessment as well as appeal proceedings and had failed to substantiate his claim with evidence, he held that the Assessing Officer was justified in treating the cash deposits of Rs. 59,07,020/- as unexplained income under section 69A of the Act. In the result, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Before us, the counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment order and CIT(Appeals) order were passed without any application of mind. The counsel for the assessee submitted bank account statement as I.T.A No. 1290/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2012-13 Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration. The Assessing Officer shall give adequate opportunity to the assessee to produce all supporting evidences in support of his claim, including but not limited to bank account statements, invoices, confirmations from counterparties, books of account, or any other material that may demonstrate that the cash deposits are relatable to his stated line of business as sale of Vodafone Sim cards. The Assessing Officer shall thereafter decide the matter afresh by passing a speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law and after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to fully cooperate in the proceedings and furnish all requisite details within the time granted.

Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,