AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER BENCH:
This is a batch of three appeals pertaining to the same assessee for AYs 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016-17. For the sake of convenience these three appeals are being disposed of through a common order.
These appeals arise from orders all dated 17.12.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. In this case, the assessee is admittedly working as a commission agent for stamp duty fees on behalf of payers for the same. Apparently, the assessee deposited such fees received from different people in his own bank account and, as claimed by the assessee, he was charging 1% commission on the amount of stamp duty to be paid or deposited by the applicants. The Ld. AO disbelieved the assessee’s contention and added the entire cash deposits in bank in all the three years, u/s 69A of the Act. It is seen that all these orders were passed by the Ld. AO without any significant participation from the assessee’s side.
The aggrieved assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) where also he could not succeed on the ground that the source of such cash deposits could not be proved with any degree of certitude. It is also seen that the assessee had placed reliance on the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) for AY 2017-18 whereby, apparently, the AO had accepted the genuineness of cash deposits. The Ld. CIT(A) has invariably distinguished the finding of that AO in all the three years.
The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds challenging the impugned orders.
Before us the Ld. AR briefly mentioned the business of the assessee and stated that only 1% of commission income was due to the assessee on the amounts deposited in his bank account. It was also stated that for AY 2017-18 the AO had accepted the assessee’s contention. It was prayed for one more opportunity to present the facts before the Ld. AO since in all the three years the assessment orders were passed in an ex parte manner.
The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.
We have carefully examined the documents before us and have considered the submissions of Ld. AR/DR. It is seen that the assessee could not make any presentation of facts before the ld. AO’s in all the three years. Similarly, even before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has not filed much by way of documentation in support of his claim. Accordingly, in the interests of substantive justice, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned orders in all the three years and remit the same back to the file of Ld. AO who would pass fresh assessment orders on the basis of submissions to be made by the assessee. The Ld. AO would also refer to the finding given for AY 2017-18 and thereafter, arrive at a just and reasonable conclusion.
In the result, these appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.