TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 633
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ating document amounting to Rs. 2,86,29,100/- for A.Y. 2016-17 and Rs. 1,50,00,000/- in A.Y. 2017-18 added by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the Act treating the same as unexplained money. Since the issue raised by Revenue in both these appeals is common except the quantum of addition and grounds raised are identically worded, we will take the facts from the lead year i.e. A.Y. 2016-17 in ITA No.486/Chd/2023. The grounds raised by Revenue reads as under: - 1. That, the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,86,29,100/- made u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained money. 2. That, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the unexplained cash transaction as commission receipt. 3. That, the ld. CIT(A) has ignored the facts that the assessee has received cash which was higher than cash paid. 4. That, the CIT(A) has ignored the facts that the assessee had never shown his commission income in his return of income. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 3. Brief fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Assessee @ 3% of the total fund noted in the ledger account or seized document at Rs. 4,20,96,000/- and thereby estimated the commission at Rs. 12,62,880/- by observing as under:- "Enquiry u/s 133(6) during appellate proceedings During the course of appellate proceedings, it was felt necessary to make enquiry with M/s. Apex Fibre India Limited and M/s. Rama Traders whose names were mentioned in the said seized document to corroborate the version of the assessee. Information was called for from M/s. Apex Fibre India Ltd., Bathinda and M/s. Rama Traders, Bathinda u/s 133(6) of the Act to confirm whether the transactions of copies of accounts as furnished by the appellant during the assessment and appellate proceedings were true or not. The said transactions were confirmed by the respective parties in response to enquiries made u/s 133{6). The reply received from the abovementioned parties is scanned below for ready reference: "Date: 10.05.2023 To The Commissioner of Income Tax CIT (Appeals)-5 Ludhiana Sub: Enquiry u/s 133(6) of income tax act, 1961 during the appellate proceedings in the case of Sh. Sanjeev Mi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cheque as depicted in the ledger accounts furnished by the appellant before the Assessing Officer and also before this office during the course of appellate proceedings have been confirmed by the third parties under enquiry u/s 133(6). As far as the cheque entries are concerned, the version of the assessee has been accepted by the AO. Before the AO, the assessee has submitted that the same are in the nature of unsecured loans received by the above entities through banking channels from different entities/ persons for whom the assessee acted as a broker. This fact is again corroborated by the seized document wherein, the interest on the said amounts has been calculated @18% p.a. for the period for which the seized document pertains. Under these circumstances, there was onus on the Assessing Officer to establish that the cash transactions appearing in the seized document are of a completely different nature. It was also important for the AO to establish that the same does not derive its color from the other transactions entered through banking channels as noted in the same seized document. No entity in the name of BTD, 2011 as written on the top of the seized document has be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....payments are again to Apex Fibre PNB current account Similarly, these payments are to Rama Traders PNB account No. 20718. These transactions are by way are either through cheques or through RTGS payments. We noted that the CIT(A) has conducted inquiry u/s 133(6) of the Act in relation to the major two parties Apex Fibre India Limited and Rama Traders, whose names are mentioned in the seized documents. The CIT(A) to corroborate the version of Assessee has called for information u/s 133(6) from these two parties i.e. like copy of ledger account of these parties depicting these transactions. The CIT(A) examined these parties and who filed confirmation letters [which are part of the order of the CIT(A)] and the same was referred to the Assessing Officer for comments but the Assessing Officer has not responded to the letter of the CIT(A) dated 11.5.2023 sent on email. The CIT(A) analyzed the transactions after verifying all the transactions and concluded logically that the interpretation of the seized documents, seems plausible the explanation of the Assessee that the Assessee is arranging funds for other parties and may be charging commission. When these facts were confronted to ld. CI....