SHREYANS ANILKUMAR SHAH,NA vs. ARIVS.CIT(A), WARD 5, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.”

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee the assessee has filed his return of income declaring total income at Rs.1,51,020/- for year under consideration. The assessment was reopened by the Assessing Officer (AO) noting that the assessee had deposited heavy cash amount in his bank account of amounting to Rs.21,20,783/- with the ICICI bank and further a sum of Rs.8,30,859/- in other bank accounts. The AO also made an addition Rs.3,01,995/- Since the assessee did not explain the source of the aforesaid expenses with reliable evidence, therefore, the AO treated the aforesaid deposits on account of unexplained deposits. The AO completed the assessment by making an addition of Rs.32,53,637/-. Penalty proceedings were also initiation u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Since the impugned addition were confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings, therefore, the AO levied the impugned penalty of Rs.15,00,000/- which has been further confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A).

Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied upon the order of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee dated 26/09/2025 passed in ITA No.727/SRT/2023, whereby, the Tribunal has accepted the contentions of the assessee that the aforesaid amounts found deposited in the bank accounts of the assessee was collection from customers in the course of his profession of a freelancer/agent for various financial Asst. Year : 2010-11

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee in his return of income had already shown an income of Rs.3,05,484/- as brokerage income being commission income earned. That the Tribunal has also accepted his contention that the assessee was acting as a freelancer/agent for various financial schemes. He has submitted that the Tribunal, though, has estimated the commission income of the assessee @15% of the gross receipts, yet, it is not a case, wherein it is proved that the assessee has concealed his income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee had duly shown the commission income, but at a lesser rate. He, therefore, relying upon various case laws, has submitted that merely the income has been estimated at a higher rate, the same could not be held to be a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income.

We find force in the aforesaid contention raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. The impugned addition was made by the AO on the ground that the assessee had unexplained deposits in his bank account, whereas, the Tribunal has accepted the contention of the assessee regarding the source of the deposits and also that the assessee had earned only commission income thereupon. Therefore, the very basis on which the impugned additions were made has not been sustained. The assessee had also duly offered commission income in his return of income. Merely because the Tribunal has estimated the commission income at a higher rate, that itself, is not enough to hold that it is a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or of concealment Asst. Year : 2010-11

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

"%थ$ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु& / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु& अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- िवभागीय "ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण 5. सूरत /AR,ITAT, Surat/Ahmedabad. , , 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file.