Rajesh Kumar Maurya vs Assessing Officer, Ward 43(5)

This appeal of the assessee arises out of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] in Appeal No. 6247/Del/2026 for A.Y. 2017-18 dated 23.03.2026 which in turn arises out of the order passed by the Assessing Officer, Ward 43(5), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’) passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 31.12.2019.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issuance of notice. Hence I proceed to dispose of this appeal on hearing the learned DR and based on materials available on record.

The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned CITA was justified in confirming the addition made in the sum of Rs 14,63,000 under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act on account of cash deposits made during the demonetization period, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

I have heard the Learned DR and perused the materials available on record. The assessee had not filed any income tax return for the assessment year 2017-18 under section 139 of the Act. Information was obtained by the Learned AO that assessee had made certain cash deposits during the demonetization period in the sum of Rs 14,63,000. Accordingly, notice under section 142(1) of the Act stood issued to the assessee calling for the return of income and seeking explanation for the sources of cash deposits made in the bank account. Due to non-compliance from the side of the assessee in furnishing the requisite details, the Learned AO framed the assessment under section 144 of the Act on 31-12-2019 wherein the cash deposits made during the demonetization period in the bank account in the sum of Rs 14,63,000 stood added as unexplained money under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Learned CITA wherein written submissions were filed by the assessee. In the said written submissions, the assessee submitted that he was engaged in the business of providing vehicle related services to the clients relating to various licenses and documents issued by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways which are required to be obtained in order to run the commercial vehicles on road. Such licenses or documents include national permits, police clearance certificates, driving licenses, payment of road taxes etc. The assessee receives the amount required to be paid for these licenses or documents or taxes along with service charges ranging from Rs.500 per transaction and Rs.50 per transaction from the clients in cash most of the times and rarely through cheques or other banking mode. The assessee use to deposit those cash so collected in his bank accounts and then make the payment digitally on the web portals of Ministry of Road Transport and Highways or Delhi Integrated Multimodel Transit System Limited (DIMMTS). Further, the assessee has a certificate of appointment as a customer service point from Indepay Networks Private Limited for offering banking services through State Bank of India, Kiosk Banking. The business services of the assessee also include services of e-stamp paper work for which he is registered with Stockholding Corporation of India Limited . The assessee also provided the services of mobile charges, DTH recharges, train ticket booking etc. to his customers.

It was submitted that the assessee received a notice dated 22-03-2017 from the Income Tax Department to furnish his response regarding the cash transactions made during the demonetization period to which the assessee filed his response on 25-03-2017. Subsequently, various notices under Section 142(1) of the Act issued by the Learned AO to which assessee responded well in time and cooperated with the department in providing each and every information asked for. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Learned AO sought reasons from the assessee as to why the amounts credited in cash in various bank accounts of the assessee be not added to the total income under the head income from other sources as unexplained income from undisclosed sources. In response, the assessee submitted that he had deposited totally Rs. 15,98,500 in his bank account during demonetization period. The source of such cash was explained as Rs. 1,35,500 received from SBI customers to be remitted to Indepay Networks Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 14,63,000 received from assessee’s customers over the counter and the same were remitted to Government Account of Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. It was submitted that income of the assessee is only the service charges collected from the customers.

The Learned CITA noted that the assessee failed to furnish any cogent evidence to establish that the cash deposited in the bank account did not pertain to assessee’s own unaccounted money. Further, no supporting documentary evidence such as customer wise details, confirmations or correlation with specific statutory payments were furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, the Learned CITA for want of supporting documentary evidences confirmed the action of the Learned AO with regard to the addition made in the sum of Rs. 14,63,000 on account of cash deposits made in the bank account. These observations and findings of the Learned CITA could not be controverted by the assessee before us by furnishing the relevant documentary evidences. Hence, I do not deem it fit to interfere in the order of the Learned CITA. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12/08/2026 Sd/-(M. BALAGANESH)

Dated: 12/08/2026 Copy forwarded to

Applicant

Respondent

CIT

CIT (A)

DR:ITAT

ITAT, New Delhi