MOHD SIRAJ HAJI MOHD YASIN ABALA,YAVATMAL vs. ITO WARD 1, YAVATMAL, YAVATMAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 320/NAG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 September 2025AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, decided to remand the appeals for assessment years 2014-15, 2016-17, and 2017-18 back to the learned CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The reasoning was that the issue involved in the addition required further examination to unearth the reality, especially concerning the assessee's claim of cash deposits/withdrawals made on behalf of Shri Avesh Abala of Janta Marketing. The Tribunal clarified that the onus to prove the genuineness of this claim would lie solely on the assessee, requiring them to adduce concrete and cogent evidence. The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, indicating that the substantive relief would depend on the fresh adjudication by the learned CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mohd. Siraj Haji Mohd Yasin Abala, filed appeals against the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for assessment years 2014-15, 2016-17, and 2017-18. These appeals involved common issues and identical facts. For assessment year 2014-15, the learned CIT(A) affirmed an addition of ₹1,10,00,867 under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as unexplained money. This action was taken because the assessee failed to comply with five notices issued by the learned CIT(A) by filing written submissions or supporting documents. The assessee claimed to have worked in a footwear shop for Janta Marketing, Yavatmal, collecting and depositing money on behalf of the owner, Shri Avesh Abala, and denied involvement in the addition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of ₹1,10,00,867 as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly when the assessee claims to have acted as an agent for a third party. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee contended that he was merely an employee collecting and depositing money on behalf of his employer, Shri Avesh Abala of Janta Marketing, and was not involved in the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned CIT(A). Revenue's Contentions: The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders passed by the authorities below. However, the Tribunal noted that the issue required elaboration and examination to ascertain the reality.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal
For Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha

Date of Hearing – 23/06/2025 Date of Order – 22/09/2025

O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M.

The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders of even date 25/03/2025, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”] for the assessment year 2014–15, 2016–17 and 2017–18 respectively.

Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee 2. involving common issues arising out of identical set of facts and 2 Mohd. Siraj Haji Mohd Yasin Abala to 321/Nag./2025 circumstances, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this consolidated order. However, in order to understand the implication, it would be necessary to take note of the facts of one appeal. We are, accordingly, narrating the facts, as they appear in the appeal in ITA no.319/Nag./2025, for assessment year 2014–15, the decision of which shall apply mutatis mutandis to other two appeals as well.

3.

Admittedly, despite the learned CIT(A) having issued five notices to the assessee, however, the assessee failed to comply with the same by filing any written submissions and/or supporting documentary evidences, therefore, in the absence of the same, the learned CIT(A) affirmed the addition of ` 1,10,00,867, under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") being unexplained money. The assessee has claimed that he was working in a Footwear Shop on behalf of Janta Marketing, Yavatmal, and was collecting and depositing money on behalf of his employer namely owner/proprietor Shri Avesh Abala of Janta Marketing, and the assessee was nowhere involved in the instant addition, as made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned CIT(A). Though, the learned Departmental Representative supported the orders passed by the authorities below, however, no denial to the fact that the issue

3 Mohd. Siraj Haji Mohd Yasin Abala to 321/Nag./2025 involved in the said addition is required to be elaborated and examined to unearth the reality, therefore, this Bench, by considering the peculiar facts and circumstances remanded these appeals for A.Y. 2014–15, 2016–17 and 2017–18 to the file of the learned CIT(A) for decision afresh by considering the claim of the assessee, qua cash deposit / withdrawn by the assessee on behalf of alleged proprietor Shri Avesh Abala of Janta Marketing. It is clarified that onus to prove the genuineness of the claim would be on the assessee only by adducing concrete and cogent evidence.

4.

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals for A.Y. 2014–15, 2016– 17 and 2017–18 are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22/09/2025

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →