Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an RTO agent, had cash deposits of Rs. 13,11,470/- in his bank account for AY 2013-14, which the AO added under Section 69A as unexplained income. Although the assessee subsequently filed a return under Section 44AD, he failed to furnish documentary evidence for the source of these cash deposits before the lower authorities, leading to the addition being upheld.
Held
The Tribunal, considering the request for a final opportunity and in the interest of natural justice, set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the matter back. The assessee is directed to explain the source of the cash deposits, failing which the addition made will be upheld.
Key Issues
Whether the addition under Section 69A for unexplained cash deposits was justified due to the assessee's failure to provide source documentation, and the validity of initiated penalty proceedings.
Sections Cited
Section 69A, Section 148, Section 44AD, Section 271(1)(b), Section 271(1)(c), Section 271F
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
आदेश / ORDER
PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM
This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Chandigarh dated 31.12.2024 for the assessment year 2013-14 as per the following grounds of appeal:
1. That on the facts and on the circumstances of the case, Ld. Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs.13,11,470/- towards Cash Deposit under Section 69A (Unexplained Income/Money). Ld. AO has made addition without considering the entire facts of the case. Hence, addition made is bad in Law, against natural justice and uncalled for and may kindly be deleted.
2. That on the facts and on the circumstances of the case, Ld. Assessing Officer determined the penalty proceedings U/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) & 271F on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. Ld. AO. Has initiated penalty without considering entire facts of the case. Hence, penalty initiated is bad in law, against law of natural justice and uncalled for and may kindly be dropped.
3. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter and delete the ground(s) of appeal at the time of hearing the appeal.”
2. The brief facts in this case are that there is an addition of Rs.13,11,470/- u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short ‘the Act’) in respect of cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee. The assessee is an RTO agent and as his income was below taxable limit, he had not filed his return of income. However, in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the return was filed by the assessee declaring total income of Rs.1,72,580/- as per Section 44AD of the Act. That further, the facts
3 Vinod Kumar Soni Vs. ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Chandigarh reveals that as an RTO agent, the work of the assessee includes receipts of cash from different persons for payment of challans, deposit the same in his bank account and then transfer the same to the government account as payment of challans and then hand over the receipts of e-challan to concerned persons. That for their work, the assessee would receive Rs.100-200/- from his clients. The assessee had not furnished any documentary evidence during the assessment stage nor during the first appellate proceedings to establish the source of cash deposits. That since the source of cash deposits of Rs.13,11,470/- was not being proved by the assessee, the said addition was made by the A.O which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC.
I have carefully considered the submissions of the parties herein and analyzed the facts and circumstances in this case. This is a case where the assessee is working as an RTO agent, therefore, he is not in the payroll of the government and as an agent he collects challans from various persons who were to deposit fees etc. or any such financial transactions with the RTO and in such matter, the assessee would collect those challans and deposit the same with RTO on behalf of the parties and per transaction, he would receive Rs.100-200/-. Needless to say, for the RTO there are several such agents working for and on behalf of the RTO assisting people who have various kinds of work with the RTO. However,
4 Vinod Kumar Soni Vs. ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Chandigarh the fact remains that no documentary evidences were furnished before any of the sub-ordinate authorities nor before the Tribunal by the assessee proving the source of such cash deposits of Rs.13,11,470/-. It is primary onus on the assessee to explain the source of the money in order to escape the rigours of Section 69A of the Act. However, at the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for one final opportunity to present the relevant documentary evidence before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) /NFAC and to this, the Ld. Sr. DR conceded that the matter may be once again revisited at the level of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC providing one final opportunity to the assessee in the interest of natural justice.
Having heard the parties herein, particularly considering the prayer made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, in the interest of natural justice, I set-aside the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remand the matter back to its file with a direction that the assessee shall explain the source of the cash deposits of Rs.13,11,470/- and if such sources are not explained then the addition made are to be upheld.
As per the above terms, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
5 Vinod Kumar Soni Vs. ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Chandigarh ITA No.18/RPR/2025
In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 21st day of May, 2025.