ASHOK KUMAR NITESH KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP. WARD- 19(3), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 19.10.2023 and pertains to assessment year 2017-18.

We find that there is a short delay of 1 day in filing of appeal by the assessee, for which petition has been filed.

The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 20.03.2018, admitting total income of Rs. 6,01,180/-. The case was selected for scrutiny to verify cash deposits during demonetization period. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has made huge cash deposits into various banks during demonetization period. Therefore, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to file necessary evidences to prove source for cash deposits. The assessee has made total cash deposits of Rs. 46,15,550/- during demonetization period and out of which Rs. 23,70,050/- is in valid currency notes and balance amount of Rs. 22,45,500/- was deposited in specified bank notes. Since, the assessee could not explain source, the Assessing Officer has made additions of Rs. 22,45,500/- u/s. 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), as unexplained money. The assessee had also deposited Rs. 10,36,73,015/- cash into various bank account. The Assessing Officer, after considering relevant submissions

The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed detailed written submissions and argued that he is working as an agent in Airtel Payments Bank Ltd, and on total transactions receives commission of 0.20% and in support of his contention filed a confirmation letter from the Airtel Payments Bank Ltd. The ld. CIT(A), without considering the submissions made by the assessee sustained additions made by the Assessing Officer towards cash deposits in specified bank notes and also estimation of income on total cash deposits @ 6%. Aggrieved by the ld. CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted that although the assessee has filed certain additional evidences including confirmation letter from Airtel Payments Bank Ltd, but the ld. CIT(A) without considering submissions made by the assessee simply sustained additions made by the Assessing Officer and thus, the matter may be set aside to the :-4-: ITA. No: 1523/Chny/2023 file of the ld. CIT(A) to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The ld. DR, on the other hand supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) submitted that, the ld. CIT(A) has considered written submissions filed by the assessee and after taking note of relevant facts has rightly upheld additions made by the Assessing Officer and their order should be upheld.

We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The Assessing Officer has made additions towards cash deposits during demonetization period u/s. 69A of the Act. The Assessing Officer, had also made additions towards net profit of 6% on remaining cash deposits. It was the argument of the assessee before the lower authorities that, he was an agent of Airtel Payments Bank Ltd, and on total transactions receives 0.20% commission. But, the Assessing Officer has estimated 6% net profit without considering the nature and business of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A), had also not considered relevant submissions filed by the assessee including confirmation letter from Airtel Payments Bank Ltd,