ANUP DAS, GUWAHATI,GUWAHATI vs. ASSISTANT/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

PDF

ITA 271/GTY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 December 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)5 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The assessee deposited ₹56,65,950/- cash and had large transactions but failed to file ITR for AY 2016-17, leading to a reopening u/s 147. The assessee claimed to be a 'name lender' for scrap transactions, earning only commission, but the AO added the cash deposit as unexplained money u/s 69A. The CIT(A) confirmed a reduced amount of ₹44,33,950/- and included other untaxed income, with the assessee failing to respond to notices and remand reports at lower stages.

Held

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal on merits. The CIT(A) is directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard, allow further submissions following Rule 46A, and involve the AO if necessary, ensuring a speaking order is passed.

Key Issues

Whether the addition of unexplained cash deposits was justified without proper opportunity of being heard; and whether the CIT(A) correctly confirmed the additions and enhanced income.

Sections Cited

250, 147, 144B, 194A, 144, 69A, 148, 142(1), Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962, Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI ‘DB’ BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2016-17 dated 22.01.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “For that on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on the points of law the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B and u/s 250 are bad in law. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on the points of law the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in adding a sum of Rs.56,65,950/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in confirming an amount of Rs.44,33,950/-. ITA No.: 271/GTY/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Anup Das. For that any other grounds may kindly be allow to be urge at the time of hearing.”

Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and had filed the return of Income for AYs 2014-15 & 2015-16 showing taxable income and during the year relevant to AY 2016-17 the assessee was found to have deposited cash of ₹56,65,950/-, TDS of ₹18,115/- was also made on other interest u/s 194A of the Act and as per the TCS statement, there were transactions of ₹3,16,24,266/-. As no return of income was filed for A.Y. 2016-17, therefore the assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act but the assessee did not file any return of income in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. In response to the show cause notice u/s 144 of the Act dated 07.02.2022, the assessee submitted that he was a name lender and did not deal with purchase amount as per the bank account for the transactions of scrap material with NF Railways. Photocopy of bank passbook for the relevant assessment year and a copy of the affidavit sworn by the assessee in this regard were also filed. It was requested that the matter may be taken up with the N.F. Railway. The assessee stated that he only got commission which he disclosed and deposited the taxes. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') noted that TCS of ₹3,15,900/- was collected by the FA & CAO Stores Railway as per Form No. 26AS but the assessee had not given any details of cash deposits amounting to ₹56,65,950/-. However, only a sum of ₹56,65,950/- was added as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and the total income was assessed at ₹56,65,950/-. No addition on account of the scrap transactions was made on which TCS of ₹3,15,900/- was collected. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who forwarded the details filed by the assessee to the Ld. ITA No.: 271/GTY/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Anup Das. AO for his comment. He also noted that there was a computational error on the part of the Ld. AO due to which commission income of ₹14,89,262/- remained to be taxed, therefore, a notice of enhancement of income was issued to the assessee but there was no response in this regard. The remand report was also called from the Ld. AO and the Ld. AO also informed that the assessee had failed to respond to the notice u/s 148 and 142(1) of the Act. However, since the total deposits in the bank account were found to be ₹46,33,950/- and the Ld. AO had not given any comment to the claim of the assessee that there were cash withdrawals of ₹37,09,062/- but it was noticed by the Ld. CIT(A) that there were withdrawals of ₹2 Lakh only, therefore, a copy of the remand report was shared with the assessee with a request to submit the response but as no response was filed, therefore, the withdrawal amount of ₹2 Lakh was treated as explained cash deposit and the difference of ₹44,33,950/- was confirmed and the appeal was partly allowed. The income shown in the return amounting to ₹14,89,262/- and interest of ₹56,484/- discussed in the assessment order but remained to be included in the computation of income were also included in the enhanced income and the appeal was partly allowed.