INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUCKNOW vs. SHYAM SAGAR YADAV, LUCKNOW

1. 2. Because on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.10,04,97,350/- ignoring the Page 2 of 5 fact that the onus is on the assessee to prove the source of any income/deposit in bank account.

The appeal is time barred by 32 days. The Revenue has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of appeal. After perusal of application, we have satisfied that delay in filing of appeal was for bonafide reasons and not on account of negligence or inaction on the part of Revenue. The delay in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for hearing on merits.

The only effective ground in this appeal is with regard to the deletion of addition of Rs.10,04,97,350/- by invoking the provision u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short).

Briefly stated, facts are that in this case the assessee filed his return of income on 03.08.2017, declaring total income from business of Rs.4,05,800/- after deduction of Chapter VI of Rs.1,55,000/-. The case was selected for ‘Limited Scrutiny through CASS’ to examine cash deposited during the year. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer sought an explanation from the assessee. The explanation offered before the Assessing Authority was that the assessee was working as a Bank Mitra and that the cash deposited during the year pertains to the concerned branch of the SBI. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept this explanation and made the impugned addition by invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who deleted

The Ld. Departmental Representative for Revenue supported the assessment order and submitted that in the absence of requisite information from the banker of the assessee, the AO was justified for invoking the provisions of Section 69A of the Act and making the impugned addition. He contended that the onus was on the assessee to prove that the amount deposited in his bank account belonged to the State Bank of India, as claimed by him. The assessee failed to discharge the onus cast upon him. Hence, under the facts and circumstances of the present case, the AO was justified for treating such cash deposits as unexplained investment in terms of Section 69A of the Act.

On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made before the Ld. CIT(A) and supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). He contended that the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition, as the assessee had demonstrated that the manager of the concerned branch of the State Bank of India had, in clear terms, stated that there existed an agreement with the assessee, and that the assessee was acting on behalf of the SBI for collecting cash and making payments to the customers. Therefore, there was no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). He, thus prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

Heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on records. The Revenue has not disputed the fact that the assessee had entered into an agreement with the Page 4 of 5 SBI to act as its Correspondent/Bank Mitra. As per the terms of the agreement, the assessee was authorized to collect the cash and make payment to the customers of the SBI. The assessee throughout has been stating that the cash in question pertained to the concerned branch of SBI and such Act of the assessee was duly supported by the relevant terms of the agreement. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had asked the bank manager about the specific details related to the cash. The response of the bank manager in this regard “we submit that Sh. ShyamSagaryadav was working as banking corresponding during the period in question i.e. 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 and as per the agreement with the bank he was authorized to collect cash and make payments under terms of agreement. The branch is presently not in the position to confirm/verify that the amount deposited by the assessee in the said account was consequently deposited in the concerned account holder’s account since the volume of the transactions is quite large. However, we would like to submit that we have received no complaints against the assessee for the period in question for non-deposit of amount in concerned account holder’s account which may answer your query”. However, the Assessing Officer did not appreciate the explanation offered by the assessee in the right perspective and drew an adverse inference by treating the amount as the income of the assessee in terms of Section 69A of the Act. Such an action by the Assessing Authority, without making any further inquiry from the assessee’s account statement or calling for records from the bank, in our considered view, would not be justified. Considering the totality of the facts and materials available on record, we do not see any infirmity in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A)