TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1721
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Centre ['Ld. A.O'] reopened the case of the assessee to examine cash amounting to Rs.1,31,66,770/- deposited into 'Bank of India' ['BOI'] and reassess income (if any) u/s 147 of the Act. When notices issued u/s 148 and u/s 142(1) of the Act went attended by the assessee, the Ld. AO invoked the section 144 of the Act and assessed the income to the best of his judgement by brining to tax entire of cash deposit as 'unexplained money' u/s 69A of the Act for assessee's failure to establish nature & source of such cash deposits, along-with rental income of Rs.14,065/- remained to be offered to tax by the assessee and framed the assessment accordingly u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 3. Consequent to former assessment, the Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act for and vide notice 27/11/2024 the assessee was put to a show cause notice ['SCN'] to explain as to why penalty in terms of section 272A(1)(d) should not be levied for his failure to comply with the various notices issued to him u/s 142(1) of the Act in the course of assessment proceedings. In the event of failure on the part of assessee to respond SCN, the Ld. AO issued multiple notices which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in making addition of Rs.1,31,66,770/- on account of cash deposits made into the bank accounts of the assessee by treating it as unexplained without appreciating the fact that the entire amounts of cash deposits so made were made out of the cash collections made from the customers as a Bank Mitra which was ultimately deposited into the customers respective accounts. 7. The Ld. CIT-A has erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in making addition of Rs. 14,065/-in the hands of the assessee on account of alleged rent received from Bank against hiring of plant. 8. The Ld. A.O. erred on facts and in law in not providing the appellant any such opportunity to have her say and to make compliance of the reasons being relied upon by him while creating tax demand against the assessee. 9. The appellant reserve's her right to advance such other grounds before or at the time of hearing which she may consider fit and appropriate, for which she craves leaves to amend, alter or otherwise modify the grounds appearing hereinabove with kind permission of the office of the Hon'ble Bench. ITA No. 550/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned to the respective parties for their rebuttal. ITA No. 549/LKW/2026 (Quantum Appeal); 8. From Pg 1 & 2 of paper-book, we note that, the assessee is registered 'Bank Mitra' with Bank of India at Kumhrawan Branch (UP) registered vide BC Code 11800707 w.e.f. 20/11/2014. The business correspondent sub-agency agreement laid on page 4 to 15 of paper book supports the claim of the assessee that, he was engaged as 'Bank Mitra' through Integra Micro System Pvt Ltd. as a commission agency for rendering almost 39-type of bank services to bank customers which inter-alia were in the nature of; opening of bank account, cash deposits, cash withdrawal from bank, fund transfer, remittance of cash, inter-bank remittance, opening of term or fixed deposits, aadhar seeding etc. The perusal of bank account statement (Pg 16 to 160) leaves no shred of doubt that, the financial transactions reported/detailed therein are inline with the business correspondent sub-agency agreement entered and were for facilitating the bank customers on remuneration of prescribed commission. 9. It is not oblivious from the record that, that, the appellant assessee failed to effectively present and explain his case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee in the right perspective and drew an adverse inference by treating the amount as the income of the assessee in terms of Section 69A of the Act. Such an action by the Assessing Authority, without making any further inquiry from the assessee's account statement or calling for records from the bank, in our considered view, would not be justified. Considering the totality of the facts and materials available on record, we do not see any infirmity in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) for deleting the impugned addition. The grounds raised by the Revenue are thus, dismissed." 10. It is apt to also mention here that, although there are other similar decisions which are cited on behalf of the appellant assessee, but we do not intend to burden this adjudication as the principles of adjudication/law as discussed in the former judgment (supra) is well settled now for Bank-Mitra. On the contrary, the Revenue could hardly bring out to our notice any converse decisions to depart from taking similar to view in the present case. 11. Maintaining the parity with the former adjudication laid in ITO Vs Shyam Sagar Yadav (supra) and view taken therein, we see no merit this present case where impu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hority in an appeal; consequently the assessee came before the Tribunal in present appeal on a solitary ground as reproduced hereinbefore. 16. During the course of physical hearing, the Ld. AR candidly solidified the facts of non-compliance and could hardly establish any reasonable cause there behind. However it is vehemently pleaded that, since appellant's non-compliance is attributable to a single instance, therefore imposition of penalty against each of such multiple notices is illegal. Per contra the Ld. DR submitted that, the tax authorities below have rightly imposed and sustained the penalty for not complying with two notices issued, hence warranting no interference therewith. 17. After hearing to rival contention of both the parties; perused material placed on record and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of legal position, we note that, for the reasons of non-compliance to the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act neither party is in dispute over the legality of initiation and imposition of penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act. The sole legal dispute is over the validity of multiple levy of penalty based on multiple notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act wh....