Loading judgment…
Facts
The revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 13,61,20,122/- and a penalty of Rs. 81,67,207/- by the CIT(Appeals). The addition was made by the AO for AY 2022-23 due to large cash deposits in the assessee's bank account, which the assessee claimed were due to a wrong linkage of their PAN with an institutional account.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) correctly deleted the addition and the consequential penalty. The CIT(Appeals) had considered additional evidence, including bank correspondence, which established that the assessee's PAN was indeed wrongly linked to the institutional account. The revenue failed to provide evidence to the contrary.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 13,61,20,122/- by accepting the assessee's additional evidence at the appellate stage?
Sections Cited
250, 144, 144B, 271AAC(1), 69A, 143(2), 142(1), 80C, 80D
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
These appeals have been preferred by revenue against separate impugned orders dated 15.05.2025 and 26.05.2025 passed in Appeal No.
NFAC/2021-22/10395424 and NFAC/2021-22/10421630 respectively by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2022-23, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has partly allowed assessee’s first appeals by deleting the addition of Rs.13,61,20,122/- made by the Assessing Officer, vide assessment order dated 21.03.2024 passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and by deleting the penalty of Rs.81,67,207/- imposed by Assessing Officer, vide penalty order dated 19.09.2024 passed u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act respectively.
Since, the penalty order passed u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act is consequential to the assessment order, both these appeals are being disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts of are only being narrated as under:
ITA No. 383/Agr/2025:
Briefly stating, the facts relating to this quantum appeal are that the respondent assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2022-23 on 19.06.2022, declaring total income of Rs.29,22,850/-. Return was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the reason that the deposit of cash of Rs.13,61,20,122/- (including through bearer cheque) was made in the current account maintained by assessee with Indian Bank. It was ascertained by the department that the assessee declared salary income only to the tune of Rs.32,22,850/-. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. However, the assessee remained un-responded and finally after issuing show cause notice u/s. 144 dated 27.02.2024, learned Assessing Officer completed the best judgment 2 | P a g e assessment u/s. 144 of the Act and added Rs.13,61,20,122/- and disallowed Rs.2,00,000/- u/s. 80C & 80D of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act were also initiated against the assessee.
Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals).
Learned CIT(Appeals) found that the appellant assessee is a salaried person and was working as Executive Engineer of EDD-II, Ghazipur(PVVNL) and due to mistake of Indian Bank Branch, all cash deposits made on behalf of EDD-II, Ghazipur, were reported against personal PAN of the assessee, hence, deleted the aforesaid addition of Rs.13,61,20,122/-, which was added u/s. 69A of the Act by the Assessing Officer.
Aggrieved, revenue has preferred this second appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds :
“1. That the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 13,61,20,122/-, by relying on the documents e.g. letter from Electricity Distribution Division-II (EDD-II), Ghazipur, letter from Indian Bank, Ghazipur and account statement of EDD-II, Ghazipur in which cash was deposited, without considering the fact that these documents were not submitted before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings by the assessee. Thus, the CIT(A) has failed to adhere to the provisions of Rule 46A, which mandates that an opportunity must be provided to the Assessing Officer for giving his own perspective on additional evidences before being considered in the appellate proceedings.
2. That the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in accepting the claim of the assessee that his PAN was wrongly linked by the Indian Bank. Ghazipur Branch, in the account of Electricity 3 | P a g e Distribution Division-II, Ghazipur, and consequently treating all cash deposits made on behalf of EDD-II, Ghazipur as erroneously reported against the PAN of the assessee, without appreciating the crucial fact that the PAN of an individual was inexplicably linked to the bank account of a government department (Non Individual Entity). The CIT(A) failed to enquire into or examine the involvement of the assessee in such linkage and whether it was deliberately facilitated or was a bona fide clerical error, which was essential for arriving at a just and lawful conclusion.
3. That the order of the CIT(A) dated 15.05.2025 is bad in law, perverse, and liable to be set aside. ……………………………………”
Perused the records and heard learned Sr. DR for the appellant revenue and learned AR for the respondent assessee.
Learned Sr. DR has submitted that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has admitted the additional evidences adduced by the assessee during the first appellate proceedings, ignoring the fact that the referred documents, like Indian Bank letter and account statement of EDD-II, Ghazipur etc. were not submitted before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings and submitted that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has passed the impugned order in violation of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.
Learned AR has submitted that the revenue had ample opportunity to rebut the letter issued by the Indian Bank with respect to the fact that the assessee’s personal PAN- ACHPP1438J was wrongly linked with account No. 7087292322 of Executive Engineer, EDD-II, Ghazipur, which was de-
4 | P a g e linked on the date of issuing letter from the bank on 08.08.2024, further submitting that the revenue has not still furnished anything contrary to the evidences furnished by the respondent assessee. Prayed to dismiss revenue’s appeal.
The main point for determination under appeal is as to whether learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the said addition of Rs.13,61,20,122/- by accepting assessee’s additional evidences during the first appellate stage ?
We notice that the assessment order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer was ex parte assessment u/s. 144 of the Act, where the assessee’s version was not there at all. During the first appellate proceedings, learned CIT(Appeals) has considered the letter dated 08.08.2024 issued by the Indian Bank and letter No. 5231 dated 07.08.2024 issued by the assessee in the capacity of Executive Engineer, EDD-II, Gopiganj, Bhadoi. These letters are part of the impugned order.
The bank’s letter dated 08.08.2024 clearly speaks that assessee’s personal PAN No. ACHPP1438J was wrongly linked with the institutional account of Executive Engineer, EDD-II, Ghazipur revenue Account No. 7087292322, which was delinked by the bank on the same day of issuance of letter dated 08.08.2024. Learned CIT(Appeals) appears to have exercised his powers
5 | P a g e that are co-terminus and co-extensive with those of the Assessing Officer and on the basis of the aforesaid institutional correspondence, learned CIT(Appeals) rightly came to the conclusion that assessee’s personal PAN was wrongly linked with the institutional account of EDD-II, Ghazipur by the Indian Bank, which was delinked on 08.08.2024. We observe that the appellant revenue has failed to procure any evidence contrary to the aforesaid evidences filed by the assessee during the first appellate proceedings. We have no hesitation to hold that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has not erred in passing the impugned order. The aforesaid point is accordingly determined in negative against the appellant revenue. Revenue’s quantum appeal is thus liable to be dismissed accordingly.
This Revenue’s appeal challenges the deletion of the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271AAC(1) of the Act.
Since, learned CIT(Appeals) has deleted the penalty pursuant to the deletion of the corresponding quantum addition, and we have upheld the said decision of ld. CIT(Appeals) while adjudicating revenue’s quantum we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty levied under section 271AAC(1) of the Act,
6 | P a g e as it is purely consequential to the quantum addition. The revenue’s appeal against the penalty order is liable to be dismissed accordingly.
In the result, both the appeals & 384/Agr/2025 are dismissed.