Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee did not file an income tax return for AY 2018-19. The AO reopened the assessment based on information of huge cash withdrawals and commission income, making an ex-parte addition of Rs. 3,27,09,800 for unexplained bank credits and Rs. 1,57,999 for commission income. The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 3,27,09,800 based on new evidence presented by the assessee, without obtaining a remand report from the AO.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in accepting new evidence without providing the AO an opportunity to examine it, violating Rule 46A. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the AO for a de novo adjudication, allowing the AO to properly examine the assessee's contentions and evidence.
Key Issues
The key legal issue was whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of unexplained bank credits based on new evidence without a remand report, thereby violating Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules.
Sections Cited
Section 147, Section 148, Section 144, Section 144B, Rule 46A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH “DB”: AGRA
O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in AY 2018-19, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] dated 23.06.2025 for AY 2018-19 against the order of assessment passed u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 27.04.2023 by the ld Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).
None appeared on behalf of the assessee. As directed by the Bench on previous occasion, the ld DR placed on record the report of having served the notice on the assessee. From the said report, we find that the assessee had duly received the notice. Despite that, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. Hence we proceed to dispose of this appeal on hearing the ld DR and based on materials available on record.
Viplav Singh 3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in deleting the addition made in the sum of Rs 3,27,09,800/- on account of unexplained credits in the bank account in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
We have heard the ld DR and perused the materials available on record. The assessee has not filed his return of income for AY 2018-19. The ld Assessing Officer got information that there was huge cash withdrawals made by the assessee from the bank to the tune of Rs. 3,27,09,800/- apart from additional information that assessee was in receipt of some commission/ brokerage income from M/s. Vision India Software Exports Ltd of Rs. 1,57,999/-. Accordingly, the ld Assessing Officer sought to reopen the assessment u/s 147 of the Act vide issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 25.03.2022. In response to the said notice no return of income was filed by the assessee. There was no compliance made by the assessee to the various notices issued during the course of reassessment proceedings which led to framing of assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 02.03.2023 adding the entire credits in the bank account as unexplained in the sum of Rs. 3,27,09,800/- Further, commission/ brokerage income received by the assessee of Rs. 1,57,999/- was also added in the reassessment.
Before the ld CIT(Appeals) the assessee filed detailed submission stating that he has a small franchise of Regional Rural Bank during the year and that the deposit in the bank account represent amounts received by him from various customers of bank and withdrawals thereon are amounts paid to the bank. The assessee submitted that he holds the receipt amounts from customers of the bank as bailee of bank and transfer the said amounts to the bank. The assessee would be entitled only for commission on this transaction which would be his income. These submissions were accepted as sacrosanct by the ld CIT(Appeals) without referring the matter to the ld Assessing Officer by Viplav Singh seeking for a remand report. The ld Assessing Officer was not provided any opportunity to examine the contentions of the assessee and all the evidences furnished by the assessee were filed for the first time before the ld CIT(A). Before us the ld DR vehemently argued that there was a huge violation of provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules wherein the ld Assessing Officer was not provided any opportunity to examine the additional evidences furnished by the assessee before the ld CIT(Appeals) for the first time and the assessment was framed ex parte due to non filing of details and complete non cooperation from the side of the assessee. Hence, he prayed for setting aside all this appeal to the file of the ld Assessing Officer.
Considering the aforesaid contentions, we hold that the ld Assessing Officer should be given adequate opportunity to examine the evidences filed by the assessee in support of this contentions. Hence, we deem it fit and appropriate to restore this appeal to the file of the ld Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22/01/2026.