TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1356
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and in the circumstances of the case, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A). NFAC, Delhi ought to have appreciated if deleted entire addition made by the learned A.O. who erred in reopening the assessment and made addition on presumptions, surmises and mere suspicion. 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 38,06,036/-out of Rs. 2,43,70,500/- made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) ought to have deleted the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer. Without prejudice to any ground, The determined escaped income is less than 50 lakhs, the extended time limit up to 10 years does not apply. Subsequently the reassessment notice would be considered time barred if issued beyond standard 3-year period as per section 148. Hence 148 notice is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 4. The Ld commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition made u/s 69A of the Income tax Act by the Assessing officer on the reason that the "assessee has not furnished any documentary evidences to prove the same." When the essential ingredients namely ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....avings bank account: Rs. 1,39,70,500/-; (ii) deposits in cash aggregating to Rs. 2 lakhs or more with a banking company: Rs. 2,69,33,300/-; and (iii) cash deposits of Rs. 50,000/- and more: Rs. 6,15,000/-, initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO issued notices under section 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaires, dated 19/07/2021, 15/11/2021 and 06/12/2021, but the same were not complied with by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO was constrained to proceed with and frame the assessment to the best of his judgment under section 144 of the Act. 4. The AO observed that the assessee, during the subject year, had made cash deposits of Rs. 2,43,70,500/- in his bank account with ING Vysya Bank, Giddalur Branch. As the assessee had failed to come forth with any explanation regarding the nature and source of the aforesaid cash deposits, the AO held the same as having been sourced from his unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the AO, vide his order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 26/03/2022, assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 2,43,70,500/-. 5. Ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etter as an agent issued by DCMS Ltd, wherein it was stated that he was responsible for the collection of amounts from farmers and was entitled to commission @ 0.5% of the amounts transferred to their bank for the purchase of seeds. 9. Also, it was stated by the AO that the assessee in the course of the remand proceedings before him had produced sale registers/purchase registers, original bills, agreement with DCMS Ltd etc. Further, it was stated by the AO that the assessee had claimed that his main activity was as that of an agent of DCMS Ltd, Giddaluru area, wherein he was supplying agricultural seeds and fertilizers received from DCMS Ltd to farmers, collecting amounts from them and transferring the amounts to DCMS Ltd and APS-SDC Ltd (as per the agreement), and had received commission @ 0.5% on the subject transactions. Also, the AO stated in his report that the assessee had claimed that any excess payments made would be returned to the farmers. Accordingly, it was the assessee's claim that most of the cash deposits made in his bank accounts were the amounts that he had received from the farmers for the supply of seeds from DCMS Ltd, Giddaluru. Also, the assessee in the cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ejected the same and stated in his report that the amount to the said extent was sourced out of the assessee's unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The CIT(A), based on the remand report of the AO, concurred with his view and upheld the addition of Rs. 38,06,036/- as was added by him under section 69A of the Act. 11. The assessee aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 12. We have heard the Learned Authorised Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material available on record. 13. Shri PSRVV Surya Rao, CA, the Learned Authorised Representative (for short, "Ld. AR") for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal, took us through the genesis of the controversy involved in the present case and also the additions that were initially made by the AO. 14. Coming to the dispute in hand, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) had grossly erred in law and facts of the case in summarily accepting the view taken by the AO in his remand report, dated 14/11/2024, and treating the cash deposits of Rs. 38,06,036/- (supra) as having been sourced out of the assessee's unexplaine....