TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 230
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wherein it was stated that the assessee was asked to file his explanation and the assessee failed to file any explanation/reply despite the fact that the assessee was given six opportunities and he was not prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) has not acted in consonance with the provisions of Rule 46A while deciding the case. (iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in admitting the additional evidences without drawing satisfaction on one or more of the circumstances laid down in Rule 46A of the I. T. Rules, 1962; when the AO has given ample opportunities to the assessee to furnish the requisite details. (iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) was not Justified in deleting the addition u/s 69A of Rs. 19,05,69,566/- on the basis of contention of the assessee that cash and non-cash amounts from sub agents were deposited in his bank account for transfer to Vodafone M-Pesa Limited without furnishing confirmation/ledger, copy of registered Agreement with M/s Vodafone M-Pesa Limited. (v) On the facts and circumstances of the case an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r: Name of Bank Account No. cash deposits Other credit Total credit Axis Bank 916020003410798 7,24,93,763 6839849 7,93,9333,612 Mehsana Urban Cop Bank 401101000025 50,15,800 0 50,15,800 HDFC 07371000065957 100000 1172453 1272453 ICICI 139705001888 10,32,90,435 1657266 104947701 Total 180899998 9669568 190569566 It was observed that the assessee had deposited total cash of Rs 18,08,99,998/- and other credit of Rs 96,69,568/-, totalling Rs 19,05,69,566/-. As the assessee failed to comply to notices issued by the A.O on various occasions, a show-cause notice was issued as to why the assessment should not be finalized u/s 144 of the Act. In respect of the assessee's response to show cause notice, the A.O noted that the assessee had filed incomplete details without any substantiating evidence. Further, on examination of the return of income filed by the assessee for the year under consideration the A.O noted that the assessee had shown gross turnover of Rs. 17,45,339/- in his return u/s 44AD of the I.T. Act and declared business income of Rs. 7,15,589/- without submitting any suppor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lves high volume of transactions and receipt of cash and non-cash amounts from sub agents. Cash is deposited in my bank account for transfer to Vodafone M- Pesa Limited e- wallet, hereinafter referred to as "The Company", along with the non-cash amounts. A brief note on my business is mentioned further below for your perusal. Thus, the cash deposited in my account are received from the sub agents/retail agents, are almost instantly transferred by me to the E-wallet account of The Company along with the noncash amount, as can be seen in the bank statements and the table below. Also, as per the contract, the cash does not belong to me and I have acted legitimately and as a conduit / medium to transfer the funds. Accordingly, I am entitled for a Commission from the Company for carrying out these transactions. Total Cash and noncash amounts deposited in my Bank accounts (In INR) Amount transferred from my Bank account to E wallet of the Company (in INR) Difference (excess of transferred to The Company over the amount deposited in my bank) (in INR) Reason for difference 16,93,51,873 16,96,69,289 3,17,416 Difference is due to the following: a. The diff....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C) The Mehsana Urban Co. Op Bank Limited 00401101000025 Current V Following are the comparative of cash deposits during the year : Exhibit 1: Name of the Bank Account Number Cash Deposits as per Books of Accounts Cash Deposits as per Bank Statement Cash Deposits as per SFT Return (as per Form 26AS) Cash Deposits as per the Ld. AO AXIS Bank Limited 916020003410798 7,33,10,420 7,33,10,420 7,29,07,220 7,24,93,763 HDFC Bank Limited 07371000065957 1,00,000 1,00,000 - 1,00,000 ICICI Bank Limited 139705001888 8,64,04,545 8,64,04,545 8,64,04,545 10,32,90,435 The Mehsana Urban Co. Op Bank Limited 00401101000025 50,15,800 50,15,800 50,15,800 50,15,800 Total of Exhibit 1 16,48,30,765 16,48,30,765 16,43,27,565 18,08,99,998 Your Honor, from the above comparative table of cash deposits during the year, it may be observed that: 1.. The cash deposits as per books of accounts and as per bank statements are matching. 2. The total cash deposits as per the bank statements are more than Rs. 5,03,200/- in comparison to the amount of cash depos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee has made cash deposit of Rs. 18,08,99,998/- and other credit of Rs. 96,69,568/-. Total of which comes to Rs. 19,05,69,566/- in the above bank accounts in the year under consideration. Further, in connection with such a huge cash deposit made in the bank accounts by the assessee, the return of income filed by the assessee for the year under consideration has been analyzed. The assessee has shown gross turnover of Rs. 17,45,339/- in his return u/s 44AD of the I.T. Act and declared business income of Rs. 7,15,589/-. In the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has not filed any supporting evidences to prove the genuineness of carrying out any business activity as well as no details filed in support of such disclosure of income and expenses. Moreover, such a huge cash deposit and other credit of Rs. 19,05,69,566/- in the bank accounts in the year under consideration not at all commensurate with turnover of Rs. 17,45,339/- reported by the assessee in his return of income. Hence, in the absence of any details / supporting evidences, such huge cash deposit in the bank accounts of the assessee could not found explained and added u/s 69 A of the Act of Rs. 19,05,69,566/-.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-Pesa Ltd. as additional evidences. Therefore, in absence of the above mentioned authentic details the claim of the assessee is not sustainable as well as fictitious. Hence, these are not acceptable under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. 5. The additional evidences are not acceptable as per Rule 46A of I.T. Rules, 1962..." 7.1.4 The A.O further submitted that the additional evidences are not acceptable as per Rule 46A of I.T. Rules, 1962, as the appellant had been given sufficient time during the assessment proceedings to be heard and to produce the relevant documents vide notices. It was averred that the assessee was not prevented by any genuine reason to furnish the relevant documents during the course of assessment proceedings and that the assessee neither sought any adjournment nor filed any submission along with documentary evidences before the A.O. during the assessment proceedings despite being provided multiple opportunities on account of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was requested that additional evidences may not be admitted at this stage. In this regard, the appellant submitted as under: In spite the contention of the Ld. ITO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Ledger statements of Transfer of cash deposited in the bank to the e-wallet account 8141426383 of the Company and Transfer of the amount from e-wallet account number 8141426383 to e-wallet account number 8141425816 for transfer to sub agents' e-wallet account. 7.1.6 On careful consideration of the material on record, it is observed that the appellant has submitted evidence to show that his business is that of a commission agent for mobile phone e-wallet service provider Vodafone M Pesa. His submissions and contentions are duly supported by documentary evidence. Moreover, on perusal of the bank account statements, the pattern of inflow and outflow of cash and non-cash credits and debits support his contentions regarding the nature of his business activities. In view of the above, it can be concluded that the cash and other credits in the appellant's bank accounts totaling Rs. 19,06,69,566/-have been duly explained. In view of the above, the addition made u/s 69A is unjustified and is deleted. Accordingly, Ground No.1 is allowed." 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the Ld. DR relied upon th....