INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, VAPI, VAPI vs. KAUSHIK RAMLAL PATEL, GIDC VAPI

(iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) was not Justified in deleting the addition u/s 69A of Rs. 19,05,69,566/- on the basis of contention of the assessee that cash and non-cash amounts from sub agents were deposited in his bank account for transfer to Vodafone M-Pesa Limited without furnishing confirmation/ledger, copy of registered Agreement with M/s Vodafone M-Pesa Limited.

(v) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition u/s 69A of Rs 19,05,69,566/- on the basis of contention of the assessee that cash and non-cash amounts from sub agents were deposited in his bank account for transfer to Vodafone M-Pesa Limited without furnishing Copies of ITR, Bank statement and transactions details, confirmation letter in respect of sub agent.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 29.12.2017 declaring total income of Rs.5,66,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and assessment was completed u/s 144 r.w.s. 143(3) on 30.12.2019 determining total income at Rs.19,11,35,566/- after making addition of Rs.19,05,69,566/- u/s 69A on account of cash and other credits in bank accounts treated as unexplained money. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had shown gross turnover of Rs.17,45,339/- u/s 44AD of the Act, whereas total cash deposits and credits in four bank accounts aggregated to Rs.19,05,69,566/-. Therefore, in the absence of supporting evidences during assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained u/s 69A of the Act.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred and appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed submissions along with additional evidences under Rule 46A. The assessee explained that he was acting as a commission agent of Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd. ITO Vs. Kaushik Ramlal Patel Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 3– under proprietorship concern M/s Kaushal Agency and was engaged in facilitating mobile-based money transfer services through a network of sub- agents. However, the Ld. CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence holding that the same had direct bearing on the issue and deleted the addition observing that the pattern of inflow and outflow in bank accounts supported the assessee’s explanation. The relevant observations of the Ld. CIT(A) are as under:-

“7.1 Vide Ground No.1 the appellant contends that the A.O has erred in making addition of Rs.19,05,69,566/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7.1.1 In this case, in the course of scrutiny proceedings, the A.O noted that the assessee had made substantial cash deposit and other credits in the Bank Accounts held by him in the Axis Bank, The Mehsana Co-operative Bank & ICICI as under:

Name of Account No. cash Other Total credit Bank deposits credit Axis 916020003410798 7,24,93,763 6839849 7,93,9333,612 Bank Mehsana 401101000025 50,15,800 0 50,15,800 Urban Cop Bank HDFC 07371000065957 100000 1172453 1272453 ICICI 139705001888 10,32,90,435 1657266 104947701 Total 180899998 9669568 190569566 It was observed that the assessee had deposited total cash of Rs 18,08,99,998/- and other credit of Rs 96,69,568/-, totalling Rs 19,05,69,566/- . As the assessee failed to comply to notices issued by the A.O on various occasions, a show-cause notice was issued as to why the assessment should not be finalized u/s 144 of the Act. In respect of the assessee’s response to show cause notice, the A.O noted that the assessee had filed incomplete details without any substantiating evidence. Further, on examination of the return of income filed by the assessee for the year under consideration the A.O noted that the assessee had shown gross turnover of Rs.17,45,339/- in his return u/s 44AD of the I.T. Act and declared business income of Rs.7,15,589/- without submitting any supporting evidence to prove that he had carried out any business activity nor any details in support of such disclosure of income ITO Vs. Kaushik Ramlal Patel Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 4– and expenses. Moreover, it was noted that such a huge cash deposit and other credit of Rs19,05,69,566/- in the bank accounts in the year under consideration was not at all commensurate with turnover of reported by the assessee in his return of income. In view of the above, an amount of Rs.19,05,69,566/- being total credit in the above bank accounts of the assessee was treated as his unexplained money U/S.69A of the Act.

7.1.2 In the present proceedings u/s 250, the appellant submitted as under:

1. The Ld. AO has erred in treating cash and other credits deposited in Bank accounts aggregating to Rs.19,05,69,566/- as unexplained credits under Section 69A, ignoring the explanations and information provided during the assessment.

2.Since the assessment was done u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (the Act), I did not have an opportunity to present the information, explanations and documents to the Ld. AO. Hence, I plead before your goodself to allow me to submit additional evidence (mentioned below) as per Sec. 250(4) and Rule 46A of the Income tax Act, 1962 3.I am relying on the following additional evidence to substantiate the cash deposits: a. Business Enrolment Form with the Company……………Annexure –I b. Bank account statements (4 accounts)…………………..Annexure-II to V c. Sample List of Sub Agents with their PAN and Aadhaar Cards.. Ann-VI d. Form 26AS for the A.Y. 2017-18………………………………Annexure -VII e. Ledger statements of:

5. Explanation of Cash deposited.

This business process of Mobile money service (known as M-Pesa) involves high volume of transactions and receipt of cash and non-cash amounts from sub agents. Cash is deposited in my bank account for transfer to Vodafone M- ITO Vs. Kaushik Ramlal Patel Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 5– Pesa Limited e- wallet, hereinafter referred to as "The Company", along with the non-cash amounts. A brief note on my business is mentioned further below for your perusal.

Thus, the cash deposited in my account are received from the sub agents/retail agents, are almost instantly transferred by me to the E-wallet account of The Company along with the noncash amount, as can be seen in the bank statements and the table below. Also, as per the contract, the cash does not belong to me and I have acted legitimately and as a conduit / medium to transfer the funds. Accordingly, I am entitled for a Commission from the Company for carrying out these transactions.

Total Cash and Amount Difference Reason for noncash transferred from (excess of difference amounts my Bank account transferred to deposited in my to E wallet of the The Company Bank accounts Company (in over the amount (In INR) INR) deposited in my bank) (in INR) 16,93,51,873 16,96,69,289 3,17,416 Difference is due to the following: a. The difference of one day between cash received in evening and deposited next day, and b. Other cash deposited by me in the account.

6. A brief note on my business activity: (Mobile Money service)

Your Honor, I am a Commission Agent for Vodafone M-Pesa Limited and act as the main agent operating under the proprietorship M/s. Kaushal Agency. Vodafone M-Pesa Limited is a mobile phone based money transfer, financing and micro financing service which is similar to recharge facility for pre-paid customers. I am a medium through whom the flow of money takes place where the customer requests the retail outlet/subagents to electronically transfer money on their behalf from one location to another. The retail outlet/ sub agents then transfer the amount as per the request of the customer from the balance lying with them in their account with me. The ITO Vs. Kaushik Ramlal Patel Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 6– retail outlet/sub agents are required to deposit money in advance in my current account for faster operations. The retail outlets/ subagents collect cash from their customers and deposit the amount in my account. I, in turn, transfer the amount electronically to Vodafone M-Pesa Limited. For facilitating such transfer of money, I receive commission income from Vodafone M-Pesa Limited…

All the deposits as per the books of accounts and banks statements are presented in detail as follows:

• Amounts received (both Cash and Non-Cash) from various subagents as deposited by the Customers, •transfer of funds between my own bank accounts, • saving bank interest, • income tax refund and professional/ technical fees received from IG Petrochemicals Limited and Mysore Petrochemicals Limited (same is also reflected in Form 26AS).

I am attaching herewith the copy of the all the bank accounts maintained by me during the period. The details are as under:

Name of the Bank Account Number Type of account Annexure No. AXIS Bank Limited 916020003410798 Current II HDFC Bank Limited 07371000065957 Saving III 139705001888 ICICI Bank Limited Current IV (A,B,C)

The Mehsana Urban Co. 00401101000025 Current V Op Bank Limited Following are the comparative of cash deposits during the year : Exhibit 1:

Cash Deposits as Cash Deposits as Cash Deposits as Cash Deposits Account Number per SFT Return Name of the per Books of per Bank as per the Ld. (as per Form Bank Accounts Statement AO 26AS) ITO Vs. Kaushik Ramlal Patel Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 7– AXIS Bank 916020003410798 7,33,10,420 7,33,10,420 7,29,07,220 7,24,93,763 Limited HDFC Bank 07371000065957 1,00,000 1,00,000 - 1,00,000 Limited ICICI Bank 139705001888 8,64,04,545 8,64,04,545 8,64,04,545 10,32,90,435 Limited The Mehsana 00401101000025 50,15,800 50,15,800 50,15,800 50,15,800 Urban Co. Op Bank Limited Total of Exhibit 1 16,48,30,765 16,48,30,765 16,43,27,565 18,08,99,998 Your Honor, from the above comparative table of cash deposits during the year, it may be observed that:

1.. The cash deposits as per books of accounts and as per bank statements are matching. 2. The total cash deposits as per the bank statements are more than Rs. 5,03,200/- in comparison to the amount of cash deposits reflected in Form 26AS under the head SFT transactions. 3 . The total cash deposits as per the Ld. AO, as mentioned in the assessment order, are more than Rs. 1,60,69,233/- in comparison to the total cash deposits as per the bank statements.

Exhibit 2: Non-cash Deposits Non-cash Non-cash Non-cash Deposits Deposits as per Deposits as Name of the Bank Account Number as per Books of Bank Statement per the Ld. Accounts AO AXIS Bank Limited 916020003410798 60,23,192 60,23,192 68,39,849 HDFC Bank Limited 07371000065957 11,66,679 11,66,679 11,72,453 ICICI Bank Limited 139705001888 15,03,916 15,03,916 16,57,266 The Mehsana Urban Co. 00401101000025 - - - Op Bank Limited Total of Exhibit 2 86,93,787 86,93,787 96,69,568 Total of Exhibit 1 16,48,30,765 16,48,30,765 18,08,99,998 Total of Exhibit 1 &2 17,35,24,552 17,35,24,552 19,05,69,566 ITO Vs. Kaushik Ramlal Patel Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 8– Following are the comparative of Non-cash deposits during the year:

Your Honor, from the above comparative table of non-cash deposits during the year, it may be observed that 1. The total non cash deposits as per books of accounts and as per bank statements are the same.

Relief Claimed: I plead, your Honour, to delete the addition deposits of Rs. 19,05,69,566/- made by the Ld. AO and accord justice. I crave justice from your good office.

I once again humbly request your Honour to grant additional time, as explained above, to present the additional evidence of ledger statements and the working thereof.

7.1.3 The evidence so furnished was remanded to the Assessing Officer, who submitted his report dated 23.11.2023, relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:

“ (1)Unexplained Money u/s 69 A of Rs.19,05,69,566/- :-

In this case, the assessee has maintained four bank account during the year under consideration. On perusal of bank statement of all the banks, it is seen that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs.18,08,99,998/- and other credit of Rs.96,69,568/-. Total of which comes to Rs.19,05,69,566/- in the above bank accounts in the year under consideration. Further, in connection with such a huge cash deposit made in the bank accounts by the assessee, the return of income filed by the assessee for the year under consideration has been analyzed. The assessee has shown gross turnover of Rs.17,45,339/- in his return u/s 44AD of the I.T. Act and declared business income of Rs.7,15,589/-. In the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has not filed any supporting evidences to prove the genuineness of carrying out any business activity as well as no details filed in support of such disclosure of income and expenses. Moreover, such a huge cash deposit and other credit of Rs.19,05,69,566/- in the bank accounts in the year under consideration not at all commensurate with turnover of Rs.17,45,339/- reported by the ITO Vs. Kaushik Ramlal Patel Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 9– assessee in his return of income. Hence, in the absence of any details / supporting evidences, such huge cash deposit in the bank accounts of the assessee could not found explained and added u/s 69 A of the Act of Rs.19,05,69,566/- .

In this regard, the assessee has stated that he is a commission agent for Vodafone M- Pesa Limited and act as the main agent operating under the proprietorship M/s Kaushal Agency, Vodafone M-Pesa Limited is a mobile phone based money transfer, financing and micro financing service which is similar to recharge facility for pre-paid customers. I am a medium through whom the flow of money takes place where the customer requests the retail outlet/subagents to electronically transfer money on their behalf from one location to another. The retail outlet/sub agents then transfer the amount as per the request of the customer from the balance lying with them in their account with me. The retail outlet/sub agents are required to deposit money in advance in my current account for faster operations. The retail outlets/subagents collect cash from their customers and deposit the amount in my account. I, in turn, transfer the amount electronically to Vodafone M- Pesa Limited. For facilitating such transfer of money, I receive commission income from Vodafone M-Pesa Limited.

On perusal of the submissions, it is noticed that the assessee had accepted the cash transactions occurred with M-Pesa Ltd. during the year under consideration. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that the assessee has failed to furnish the copy of yearly Agreement cash deals with M/s Vodafone M-Pesa Limited for cash transfer transaction as an additional evidences. The assessee field to produce rate of commission paid on transfer of money .The assessee has enclosed the list of sub agents without Copy of ITR, Bank statement and transactions details, confirmation letter ,affidavit etc.The assessee has not maintained minimum books of account for the relevant year. The assessee has also failed to furnish the seal & signed copy of M/s Vodafone M-Pesa Limited business enrolment form with the company . In this regard, it is clear to state that the assessee has collected money from market by different sub agents and after deducting some commission from whole amount it was transferred to the customer as a white money from ewallet to e-wallet or bank account. The assessee is a Head Agent of collecting commission from agent or subagents or third parties. In this regard, it is also pertinent to mention that the assessee did not furnish the copy of his own registered deed with M/s Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd. as additional evidences. Therefore, in absence of the above mentioned authentic details the claim of the assessee is not sustainable as well as fictitious. Hence, these are not acceptable under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. ITO Vs. Kaushik Ramlal Patel Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 10–

7.1.4 The A.O further submitted that the additional evidences are not acceptable as per Rule 46A of I.T. Rules, 1962, as the appellant had been given sufficient time during the assessment proceedings to be heard and to produce the relevant documents vide notices. It was averred that the assessee was not prevented by any genuine reason to furnish the relevant documents during the course of assessment proceedings and that the assessee neither sought any adjournment nor filed any submission along with documentary evidences before the A.O. during the assessment proceedings despite being provided multiple opportunities on account of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was requested that additional evidences may not be admitted at this stage.

In this regard, the appellant submitted as under:

In spite the contention of the Ld. ITO that multiple opportunities were provided to the assessee, as per the Rule 46A of the Income tax Act, 1961 , our contention remains that considering the amount of demand, volume and magnitude of the information and the complexity of the case certain additional time would have allowed the assessee to substantiate the claims made. Furthermore, we consider the addition evidences submitted before your goodself, necessary and critical to examine the claim of the assessee.

7.1.5 Having duly considered the submissions of both the A.O and the appellant, I find that the appellant’s contention that considering the amount of demand, volume and magnitude of the information and the complexity of the case it required additional time to substantiate the claims made, is reasonable and in the interest of natural justice, the same needs to be considered. Moreover the additional evidence now furnished has a direct and relevant bearing on the issues involved. In view of the above, it is deemed fit to admit the additional evidence.

7.1.6 Coming to the merits of the issue, the appellant has submitted that he is a Commission Agent for a mobile phone based money transfer, financing and micro financing service namely, Vodafone M-Pesa Limited which is similar to recharge facility for pre-paid customers and acts as the main agent operating under the proprietorship M/s. Kaushal Agency. The nature of his business is such that he operates as a medium through whom the flow of money takes place where the customer requests the retail outlet/subagents to electronically transfer money on their behalf from one location to another. The retail outlet/ sub agents then transfer the amount as per the request of the customer from the balance lying with them in their account with him. ITO Vs. Kaushik Ramlal Patel Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 11– The retail outlet/sub agents are required to deposit money in advance in his current account for faster operations. The retail outlets/ subagents collect cash from their customers and deposit the amount in the appellant’s account. The appellant in turn, transfers the amount electronically to Vodafone M- Pesa Limited for which he receives commission income from Vodafone M- Pesa Limited. In support of his contentions, the appellant submitted copies of Business Enrolment Form with the Company, Bank account statements, Sample List of Sub Agents with their PAN and Aadhaar Cards, Form 26AS for the A.Y. 2017-18, Ledger statements of Transfer of cash deposited in the bank to the e-wallet account 8141426383 of the Company and Transfer of the amount from e-wallet account number 8141426383 to e-wallet account number 8141425816 for transfer to sub agents' e-wallet account.

7.1.6 On careful consideration of the material on record, it is observed that the appellant has submitted evidence to show that his business is that of a commission agent for mobile phone e-wallet service provider Vodafone M Pesa. His submissions and contentions are duly supported by documentary evidence. Moreover, on perusal of the bank account statements, the pattern of inflow and outflow of cash and non-cash credits and debits support his contentions regarding the nature of his business activities. In view of the above, it can be concluded that the cash and other credits in the appellant’s bank accounts totaling Rs.19,06,69,566/-have been duly explained. In view of the above, the addition made u/s 69A is unjustified and is deleted. Accordingly, Ground No.1 is allowed.”

5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal.

6. Before us, the Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and submitted that: i. The assessee failed to produce evidence during assessment proceedings. ii. Admission of additional evidence was in violation of Rule 46A. iii. There was mismatch between turnover declared and bank deposits. iv. Confirmations from sub-agents and Vodafone were not furnished.

7. The Ld. AR, on the other hand, supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee is a commission agent of Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd. ITO Vs. Kaushik Ramlal Patel Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 12– operating through M/s. Kaushal Agency and facilitates mobile money transfer through registered sub-agents. The Ld. AR submitted that the sub-agents collect cash from customers and deposit the same in the assessee’s bank account, which is immediately transferred electronically to Vodafone M-Pesa. The Ld. AR also submitted that the assessee earns commission @ 0.40%. The Ld. AR submitted that the bank statements clearly demonstrate a matching pattern of inflow and immediate outflow of funds, substantiating the assessee’s role as a mere intermediary. It was further contended that all relevant evidences, including the agreement, business enrolment form, bank statements, ledger extracts, Form 26AS, and sample details of sub-agents, were duly furnished before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A), upon examination of these documents, rightly recorded a finding that the credits appearing in the assessee’s bank accounts stood satisfactorily explained.

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 02.03.2026 (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 02/03/2026 btk ITO Vs. Kaushik Ramlal Patel Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 13–