Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN
( A.Y 2018-19) Income Tax Officer Vs Pankaj Kandpal Rudrapur Bigbara Mandi, Chhatarpur Rudrapur, Udham Rudrapur, Uttarakhand Singh Nagar, Rudrapur, (APPLICANT) Uttarakhand, PAN: BUAPK8317H (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Saurabh Agarwal, Adv Respondent by Sh. Amarpal Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing 06.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 15 .04.2026 ORDER
PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:
The present appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 18/12/2025 for the Assessment Year 2018-19.
An assessment order came to be passed on 31/03/2021 u/s 143(3) r.w. Sections 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making addition of Rs. 6,60,91,350/- on account of unexplained cash credits. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 13/03/2021, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A)allowed theAppeal filed by the Assessee on 18/12/2025 vide order impugned. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 18/12/2025, the Department preferred the present Appeal.
The Ld. Departmental Representative canvassing on the grounds of appeal, submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,90,93,451/- after admitting the additional evidences given by the Assessee by filing an application u/s 46A of the IT Rules by the Assessee without calling for a Remand Report from the assessing Officer, thereby has erred by violating the procedure laid down in Rule No. 46A of IT Rule, 1962. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal.
4. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee relying on the orders of the CIT(A) sought for dismissal of the Appeal of the Revenue.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. As could be seen from the record, Assessee has been working a ‘Bank Mitra’ with Punjab National Bank through the Vendor Santosh Finlease Pvt. Ltd. and Assessee has also offered the income on commission earned. However, the Ld. A.O. made the entire cash deposit of Rs. 6,60,91,350/- in the hands of the Assessee.
During the First Appellate proceedings, Assessee in order to prove his employment as business correspondence as‘Bank Mitra’, produced all the relevant documents, agreement with a bank financial transaction undertaken etc. The Ld. CIT(A) took cognizance of those documents and deleted the addition; however, while doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) has not followed the procedure contemplated under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules. Though prima facie, we find merit in the case of the Assessee and CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the case of the Assessee on merits, however, considering the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has not followed the prescribed procedure by calling for the Remand Report from the A.O. as prescribed under Rule 46A of the Rules, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Further, ultimately as the documents/Additional Evidence produced by the Assessee have to be verified by the A.O., we remand the matter to the file of the A.O. with a direction to the A.O. give due consideration to the claim/ contention and the documents of the Assessee and decide the issues afresh in accordance with law. Assessee is at liberty to produce all documents in support of his claim.
In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose.