2025 (4) TMI 1433 - AT - Income Tax

Auto-Rickshaw Driver Wins Tax Battle: Large Bank Transactions Scrutinized, Unjustified Tax Addition Deleted

Surendra Kumar Rajmani Mishra Versus Income Tax Officer – 22 (3) (4)

The SC/Tribunal examined a tax dispute involving an auto-rickshaw driver's bank account with large transactions. The Tribunal found the Assessing ... Addition as commission income in the hands of an auto-rickshaw driver - HELD THAT:- Assessee is an auto-rickshaw driver, who was lured by Shri Raju Bhimrajka to carry on the business in the name of M/s. Aqua Trading Company. The assessee was offered Rs. 2,000/- per month for his name. It is beyond one’s imagination as to how an auto-rickshaw driver can do transactions of Rs. 103,33,86,100/-. AO was in possession of the complete information of all the three companies mentioned elsewhere. The AO was also in possession of the transactions done through RTGS inter-se bank transfers by the three companies but the AO did not make any verifications from the real culprits and taxed the entire amount in the hands of the autorickshaw driver i.e., the assessee. AO ought to have considered the transactions, once the assessee has stated on oath that he is not doing any business but the entire business is done by Shri Raju Bhimrajka, there is no evidence on record that the AO made any effort to trace the real business behind the alleged transactions and instead chose to make addition in the hands of the assessee. We are of the considered view that such action of the AO cannot be justified on any count. Therefore, considering the peculiarity of the case, being that of an auto-rickshaw driver, the impugned addition cannot be sustained in his hands and is accordingly directed to be deleted. It is made clear that considering the peculiarity of the case and considering that the assessee is an auto-rickshaw driver, our decision should not be considered as precedence in any other case. The AO is free to take action against real culprits and bring them to tax-net. In the interest of justice and fairplay, appeal of the assessee is allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether addition of Rs. 1,03,33,86,100/- as unexplained commission income is sustainable where assessee, an auto-rickshaw driver, asserted on oath that bank account transactions were operated by another person and only Rs. 2,000 per month commission was received and declared. 2. Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) was required to investigate and trace the real persons responsible for large inter-account RTGS transactions before making an addition in the assessee's hands. 3. Whether, in light of the peculiar facts (assessee's occupation, admitted role, and available information regarding other companies' accounts and inter-se transfers), the impugned addition could stand as a matter of law and fact. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Sustenance of addition of Rs. 1,03,33,86,100/- as unexplained commission income Legal framework: Assessment powers to make additions where income is unexplained; evidentiary standard in support of additions; relevance of assessee's sworn statement under section 131 (statement on oath) and declared income in return. Precedent treatment: Authorities below made addition on basis of bank transactions and account ownership without accepting assessee's explanation; no new precedent was adopted or overruled in the judgment. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the factual matrix: (a) assessee's occupation as an auto-rickshaw driver; (b) his sworn statement that the business was carried on by another person in his name; (c) assessment records showing large credits (Rs.1,03,33,86,100/-) in the bank account and inter-se RTGS transfers among three entities; and (d) absence of any material showing that the assessee exercised control or profited beyond declared monthly commission of Rs.2,000. The Tribunal found it 'beyond one's imagination' that an auto-rickshaw driver conducted transactions of the magnitude reflected. Given the assessee's oath and lack of contradictory material linking him to the business operations or to the funds, the Tribunal concluded the AO's blanket addition of the entire amount to the assessee's income lacked justification. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where an assessee credibly asserts (on oath) lack of involvement and offers limited declared commission income, and where there is no material connecting him to the large transactions, the AO cannot, without further investigation, treat the entire bank transactions as his income. Obiter - statements emphasizing incredulity ('beyond one's imagination') are illustrative and cautionary, not novel legal propositions. Conclusions: The impugned addition in the assessee's hands could not be sustained and was deleted. Issue 2 - Obligation of the AO to investigate/trace real culprits before taxing the assessee Legal framework: Duty of assessing authority to make enquiries and verify relevant facts before making adverse additions; probative value of information available to AO (bank records, inter-account transfers) vis-à-vis need to identify true beneficiaries or operators of transactions. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal criticized the AO for failing to pursue available leads and for not verifying transactions with the persons/entities actually involved; no authority was expressly applied or disapproved, but the Tribunal treated investigative deficiency as fatal to the addition. Interpretation and reasoning: The AO possessed complete information of the three companies and the inter-se RTGS transfers but did not pursue verification from the 'real culprits.' The Tribunal held that once the assessee made an oath denying operation of the business, the AO had an obligation to make efforts to trace and tax the true actors if appropriate. Absent such steps, attributing the entire transaction value to the nominal account holder was impermissible. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where available information points to other entities/persons executing transactions, and the assessee disclaims operational control on oath, the AO must investigate the actual operators before making a wholesale addition to the nominal account holder's income. Obiter - directions suggesting the AO 'is free to take action against real culprits' are procedural guidance tailored to facts, not general precedent. Conclusions: The AO's failure to investigate the actual parties responsible for the large transactions rendered the addition unsustainable. Issue 3 - Role of peculiar facts (assessee's occupation and declared commission) in determining taxability of huge bank transactions Legal framework: Assessment must be grounded in evidence and rational inference; assessment cannot rest on mere suspicion or on a mechanical aggregation of credits without linking them to taxable income of the assessee. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal treated the facts as determinative in the absence of contrary material; no broader rule beyond the factual determination was laid down. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized the 'peculiarity' of the case - an auto-rickshaw driver whose nominal ownership of a trading account followed from inducement and who received a small declared commission. That factual constellation weakened the inference that the assessee controlled or derived income from the large account transactions. Consequently, fairness and legal standards of proof precluded sustaining the addition against him. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - factual attributes of an assessee (occupation, admitted limited role, minimal declared income) are relevant and can preclude treatment of large unrelated bank transactions as his taxable income absent corroborative evidence. Obiter - caution that the decision should not be treated as precedent in other cases is an explicit limiting remark by the Tribunal. Conclusions: Given the peculiar facts, the addition was deleted; the Tribunal expressly limited the decision's precedential value and permitted the AO to pursue the actual culprits. Cross-references and Interaction of Issues The Tribunal's conclusions on Issues 1-3 are interdependent: the assessee's sworn denial and occupation (Issue 3) required the AO to investigate (Issue 2); failure to do so rendered the addition of the large amount in his hands unjustified (Issue 1). The Tribunal tied its deletion to both evidentiary insufficiency and procedural inadequacy of investigation.