Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a business correspondent/bank mitra, did not file a return of income for AY 2020-21. An assessment was completed ex-parte under Sections 147, 144, and 144B following non-response to notices under Sections 148A(b) and 148, resulting in additions of Rs.3.47 crore under Section 69A for cash transactions and Rs.2.96 lakh for undisclosed contract income. The CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the assessee's appeal and did not admit additional evidence under Rule 46A due to a technical reason (lack of affidavit).
Held
The Tribunal observed that for AY 2021-22, under identical facts, the Assessing Officer himself had dropped similar proceedings against the assessee. Considering this and the technical dismissal of additional evidence by the CIT(A), the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, directing the AO to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and for the assessee to cooperate.
Key Issues
Validity of additions made under Section 69A and for undisclosed contract income; jurisdiction of ITO for issuing notice under Section 148; non-admission of additional evidence by CIT(A); and the relevance of AO dropping similar proceedings for a subsequent assessment year on identical facts.
Sections Cited
Section 69A, Section 133(6), Section 148A(b), Section 148A(d), Section 148, Section 147, Section 144, Section 144B, Rule 46A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 07.08.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2020-21.
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. AO erred in making addition to total income of Rs.3,47,70,000/- U/s 69A without considering facts and circumstances of the case.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. AO erred in making addition to total income of Rs.2,96,714/- as income from other sources without considering facts and circumstances of the case.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT appeal erred in confirming addition to total income of Rs.3,47,70,000/- U/s 69A without considering facts that on 27/06/2025 on same fact Learned AO considered the submissions of Appellant and dropped the assessment proceedings For AY 2021-22.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. ITO, Ward 1(5) erred in issuing notice U/s 148 without jurisdiction actually ITO, Ward 1(1) has jurisdiction over appellant.
5. The Appellant crave, leave to, add to, alter or amend the aforesaid grounds of appeal
.”
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and claimed to be a business correspondent/bank mitra and has not filed his return of income for the year under consideration. On the basis of information available on insight portal and also on the basis of information collected through 133(6) proceedings, notice u/s 148A(b) was issued to the assessee. Since there was no response from the side of the assessee, the order u/s 148A(d) was passed and notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued to the assessee. Neither any return of income nor any response was furnished before the Assessing Officer, therefore the assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining total income at Rs.3,50,66,714/-. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.3,47,70,000/- u/s 69A of the IT Act on account of cash deposit and cash withdrawal from bank account and undisclosed contract income of Rs.2,96,714/-.
Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee also moved an application under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidences in support his contentions. Not being satisfied with the contentions of assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal without admitting the additional evidences.
It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that admittedly the case of the assessee for assessment year 2021-22 was also reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act and after considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer himself has dropped the proceedings and no addition was made in the hands of the assessee. In the instant case in hand, the reopening was also made on identical facts, since the assessee could not participate in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer the impugned addition was made in the hands of the assessee. Even Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has not admitted the additional evidences furnished by the assessee due to technical reasons i.e. the assessee could not furnish an affidavit in support of application under Rule 46A. We further find that the assessee is a business correspondent duly appointed by authorized agencies and engaged in providing services as bank mitra to the customers of bank situated in remote areas.
Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the light of the fact that for assessment year 2021-22 under identical facts the contentions of the assessee has already been accepted by the Assessing Officer, therefore, without going into merits of case and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to pass assessment order afresh as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby