ARVINDBHAI PUNABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD V. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1998/AHD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Arvindbhai Punabhai Patel, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which confirmed the addition of Rs.16,94,93,035 as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reassessment was based on information that the assessee had advanced an unsecured loan of Rs.9,80,75,000, which was not reflected in his books. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had linked the cash deposits to the loan transaction and treated the deposits as unexplained income. The Tribunal dismissed the legal challenge to the reassessment's validity but accepted the plea for estimation of income based on commission, restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification and re-assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 398356 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. Mohmed Juned Dadani [(2014) 214 Taxman 38 (Guj.)], Mahesh Subhash Shukla v. ITO [ITA No. 3919/Mum/2024]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DURG A DUTT
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL THAKKAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings; Corroborative evidences; Unexplained cash credit; Rule of consistency; Principle of natural justice; Third party statement; Accommodation entries; Tangible material
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 142(1); 271(1)(c); 68; 69; 133(6); 2

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,अहमदाबाद \bयायपीठ अहमदाबाद \bयायपीठ अहमदाबाद \bयायपीठ अहमदाबाद \bयायपीठ ‘D’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE MS.SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1998/Ahd/2024 Asstt.Year : 2013-14 Arvindbhai Punabhai Patel 306, Mangaljyot Jodhpur Road Jodhpur Char Rasta SO Ahmedabad. PAN : AGGPP 5322 A Vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(1) Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Mehul Thakkar, AR Revenue by : Shri Durga Dutt, CIT-DR सुनवाई क तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04/06/2025 घोषणा क तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 06/06/2025 आदेश आदेश आदेश आदेश/O R D E R PER MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], dated 17.09.2024 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] for the assessment year 2013–14. The impugned order arises from the reassessment framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(12), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer / AO”], under ITA No.1998/Ahd/2024 2 section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, dated 13.12.2017. Facts of the Case 2. The brief facts, as emanating from the record, are that the assessee is an individual who had filed his original return of income for the A.Y. 2013–14 on 29.09.2013, declaring a total income of Rs. 13,42,700/-. The case was reopened under section 147 of the Act on the basis of information received in the case of Shri Chimanbhai Kalubhai Patel [PAN: ACTPP0989L], wherein it was revealed that the assessee had allegedly advanced an unsecured loan of Rs.9,80,75,000/- during the financial year 2012–13, which was not reflected in the books of account of the assessee. Accordingly, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 27.05.2016 and served by RPAD. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued several notices under section 142(1) of the Act along with detailed questionnaires, but the assessee failed to respond to most of the notices. Although it was claimed that the assessee’s representative, CAs Nipur Shah and later Mahesh Chhajed, had appeared on some occasions and sought time to submit documents, no detailed or substantiated explanation was filed. The AO also issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to the Branch Manager of the ICICI Bank Ltd. The AO proceeded to complete the reassessment ex-parte on 13.12.2017. In the reassessment order, the Assessing Officer made a substantive addition of Rs.16,94,93,035/- under section 68 of the Act, treating the said ITA No.1998/Ahd/2024 3 amount as unexplained cash credit on account of large cash deposits made in the following four ICICI Bank accounts held by the assessee: Sr. No. Account Number Amount (Rs.) 1 006705000412 12,99,100/- 2 093005001118 8,22,21,444/- 3 093005500510 1,37,90,550/- 4 93005001162 7,21,81,941/- Total 16,94,93,035/- 3. The AO also referred to the contra confirmation received from Shri Chimanbhai Kalubhai Patel, who had disclosed the unsecured loan in his books. However, since no such loan was recorded in the books of the assessee, and the loan was allegedly funded out of the same cash deposits, the AO inferred that the assessee had introduced unaccounted money in the guise of loan transactions. Consequently, the total income was assessed at Rs.17,08,35,735/-, and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were separately initiated. 4. The assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The appellate proceedings were conducted through electronic platform. The assessee filed initial written submissions on 22.04.2021 and reiterated them on 25.08.2023, asserting that the reassessment was invalid and the cash deposits were duly explained as arising from business activities. However, when the CIT(A) issued detailed questionnaires under section 250 dated 19.04.2023 and 26.05.2023, seeking documentary evidence and explanations in support of the grounds raised, the assessee failed to file any response. This non-compliance was also admitted in paragraph ITA No.1998/Ahd/2024 4 8 of the Statement of Facts, where the assessee attributed the lapse to inadvertence. The learned CIT(A), therefore, proceeded to dispose of the appeal by a speaking order, holding that despite being given multiple opportunities, the assessee failed to furnish any factual rebuttal or supporting documents. Relying on some judicial precedents the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, without adjudicating the legal and factual grounds on merits. 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us and has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the grounds raised before him. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the Appeal of the assessee without considering the detailed submission made before him on 25-08-2022. 3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also erred on facts and in law in ignoring the legal position that when on ground on which reopening was based, no addition was made by the assessing officer, he could not make addition on some other grounds which did not form the part of reasons recorded by him. Therefore; the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.16,94,93,035/- on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the learned assessing officer in making an addition of Rs.16,94,93,035/- being amount of cash deposited with the bank as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 5. The appellant craves leave, to add, urge, alter, modify or withdraw any grounds before or at the time of hearing. 6. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 relate to the grievance of the assessee that the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without ITA No.1998/Ahd/2024 5 adjudicating the grounds raised before him, and in not considering the written submissions dated 25.08.2023 filed by the assessee. The assessee contends that such action has resulted in denial of justice and violation of procedural fairness. 7. We have perused the impugned appellate order passed under section 250 of the Act, as well as the record available before us. It is not in dispute that the assessee filed written submissions on 22.04.2021 and reiterated the same on 25.08.2023. However, it is also a matter of record that the learned CIT(A) issued specific questionnaires under section 250 of the Act on 19.04.2023 and again on 26.05.2023, seeking the assessee’s explanation on material issues. The assessee has not disputed that no response was filed to either of the two notices, and this omission is expressly admitted in paragraph 8 of the assessee’s own Statement of Facts, wherein it is stated that the notices “could not be responded due to oversight.” The affidavit filed by the assessee also confirms that the documents could not be traced in time as the original representative had relocated. No separate factual rebuttal or material was thereafter produced before the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. 8. In our considered view, once specific factual deficiencies were pointed out by the appellate authority, the onus was on the assessee to respond and assist in the adjudication of his own appeal. The assessee, despite being given multiple opportunities, failed to place on record any corroborative evidence to support the claim that the cash deposits were explained or that the ITA No.1998/Ahd/2024 6 addition under section 68 was unjustified. In such circumstances, we find no error in the approach of the learned CIT(A) in invoking the ratio laid down by the judicial precedents, wherein it was held that preferring an appeal without prosecution is equivalent to non-preferring it, and the appellate authority is not required to adjudicate grounds in vacuum without substantiation. It is trite law that legal arguments must be supported by facts, and in the absence of any documentary or evidentiary support, the appellate authority cannot be faulted for dismissing the appeal. Accordingly, the grievance that the CIT(A) failed to consider the written submissions dated 25.08.2023 is devoid of merit, as those submissions were not accompanied by any new facts or explanations and merely reiterated earlier general legal contentions. 9. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the action of the learned CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal in limine for want of prosecution and for failure to support the grounds raised. The principles of natural justice do not extend to granting endless indulgence, particularly where procedural notices remain unanswered. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are dismissed. 10. Ground No. 3 raises a legal issue regarding the jurisdictional validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act. The grievance of the assessee is that the Assessing Officer reopened the case for a specific reason, namely the alleged advancement of an unsecured loan of ITA No.1998/Ahd/2024 7 Rs.9,80,75,000/- to Shri Chimanbhai Kalubhai Patel, which was not reflected in the assessee’s books of account. However, no addition was ultimately made on that specific ground. Instead, the entire addition made in the reassessment order was on account of cash deposits of Rs.16,94,93,035/- in various ICICI Bank accounts, treated as unexplained cash credits under section 68. It is thus contended that the Assessing Officer, having not made any addition on the ground recorded for reopening, could not legally travel beyond such reason and make addition on unrelated issues, and therefore, the reassessment is invalid and liable to be quashed. 11. The learned Authorised Representative (AR) placed reliance on some judicial precedents including the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in case of CIT v. Mohmed Juned Dadani [(2014) 214 Taxman 38 (Guj.)] The consistent proposition emerging from these decisions is that where no addition is made on the very issue for which assessment was reopened, the reassessment fails the test of jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. 12. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative (DR) strongly objected to this contention and submitted that the addition made under section 68 is intrinsically linked to the reason recorded. In particular, reference was made to page 5 of the assessment order, wherein the Assessing Officer recorded that the unsecured loan to Shri Chimanbhai Kalubhai Patel was sourced out of the same cash deposits in the assessee’s bank ITA No.1998/Ahd/2024 8 accounts, which were found to be unaccounted. The DR argued that the AO traced the source of loan to cash deposits, and since the assessee had not maintained books of account or shown any loan entries therein, the addition was ultimately made under section 68 treating the deposits as unexplained. Thus, the substance of the addition corresponds to the issue flagged in the reopening, and the reassessment cannot be said to be based on extraneous grounds. 13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and examined the record. On perusal of the reason recorded for reopening as summarised in the assessment order, it emerges that the Assessing Officer had relied on information received from the case of Shri Chimanbhai Kalubhai Patel and found that an unsecured loan of Rs.9,80,75,000/- was claimed to have been received by him from the assessee, Shri Arvindbhai Punabhai Patel. However, the said loan was not reflected in the assessee’s return or books, leading to the belief that income had escaped assessment. The AR’s argument that no addition was made on this issue appears, at first glance, to have force. However, on a closer scrutiny of the reasoning recorded by the AO in the body of the assessment order, it becomes clear that the Assessing Officer linked the cash deposits in the assessee’s ICICI Bank accounts with the said loan transaction. In fact, the AO proceeded to observe that since the loan was not recorded in the assessee’s books, and the assessee had made large cash deposits in his bank accounts without explanation, the same should be treated as the real source of the loan advanced, and accordingly, ITA No.1998/Ahd/2024 9 the cash deposits were brought to tax as unexplained income under section 68. 14. In our considered view, this is not a case where the AO has made addition on an entirely unrelated ground. Rather, the AO traced the funding of the loan to unaccounted cash deposits, and treated the latter as unexplained for want of books and records. The loan transaction served as the triggering event for the reopening, and the inquiry led to a connected addition on the same line of inquiry. It is now settled law that if the AO makes an addition on a matter which was examined as a result of or connected with the reason recorded, the reassessment cannot be invalidated merely because the form of the addition differs from the reason recorded. In this regard, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Mohmed Juned Dadani (supra) indeed quashed reassessment where no addition was made on the issue of reopening. However, that decision is distinguishable on facts, as there was no nexus between the recorded reason and the ultimate addition in that case. In contrast, in the present case, the loan transaction and cash deposits are part of a single factual chain and cannot be viewed in isolation. Where the AO finds that the purported loan is fictitious and is backed by unaccounted cash, the addition of cash deposits falls within the ambit of the original reason, even if the section applied is different. It is also pertinent to note that the reassessment has been completed within the scope and spirit of section 147. The existence of tangible material, coupled with the enquiry into the source of loan and the linked cash deposits, supports the jurisdiction ITA No.1998/Ahd/2024 10 assumed by the AO. The procedural compliance with issue of notice under section 148 and the recording of reasons is not in dispute. We therefore do not find merit in the assessee’s challenge to the validity of the reassessment. Accordingly, Ground No. 3 is dismissed. 15. Ground No. 4 challenges the addition of Rs.16,94,93,035/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Act, treating the said amount as unexplained cash credits, being deposits in four ICICI Bank accounts held by the assessee. The assessee contends that the impugned cash deposits did not appear in his regular books of account, and therefore, section 68 has no application in law, since the section requires a credit entry in the books of the assessee as a foundational condition for invoking its provisions. 16. The learned AR submitted that the bank accounts in question were not forming part of any regular books of account maintained by the assessee, and that no entry relating to such deposits was found in the assessee’s audited financials. In such circumstances, it was argued that the bank passbook or bank statement is not “books of account” maintained by the assessee, and hence section 68 cannot be applied to make additions based solely on such deposits. The AR placed reliance on some judicial precedents in support. In particular, the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in case of Mahesh Subhash Shukla v. ITO [ITA No. 3919/Mum/2024]. Reiterated that unrecorded deposits in non- books cannot be taxed under section 68. On the other hand, the ITA No.1998/Ahd/2024 11 learned Departmental Representative relied on the assessment order. 17. The learned AR advanced an alternate plea seeking relief on the quantum of addition. It was submitted that even if the impugned cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 16,94,93,035/- made in the assessee’s ICICI Bank accounts are held to be unexplained, the entire amount should not be treated as income in the hands of the assessee. The AR contended that the assessee was not the beneficial owner of the funds deposited and was merely facilitating transactions on behalf of third parties. Accordingly, the only income element embedded in such deposits, if any, could be in the nature of commission or facilitation charges. To support this proposition, the learned AR placed reliance on the assessment framed in the assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding year, A.Y. 2012–13, wherein on similar facts, the Assessing Officer had not treated the full bank deposits as undisclosed income. Instead, the AO had accepted that the assessee was engaged in providing accommodation entries and estimated the income at 1% of the aggregate banking turnover. A copy of the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 30.12.2019 for A.Y. 2012– 13 was placed on record. In that year, the AO found cash deposits of Rs.13.12 crore across multiple ICICI Bank accounts and, after examining the pattern of deposits and corresponding debits, treated the assessee as an entry provider and estimated total banking turnover (total of debit and credit) at Rs.26.24 crore. Thereafter, commission income was estimated at 1% of the ITA No.1998/Ahd/2024 12 turnover, resulting in a net addition of Rs. 17.24 lakh after allowing for amounts already declared by the assessee. The AR submitted that the present year’s facts are materially the same. The assessee is again alleged to have rotated large sums of cash through the banking system and provided an unsecured loan of Rs. 9.80 crore, which the Revenue contends was sourced from such deposits. However, no specific verification or estimation was undertaken by the AO in the present year to identify the nature of the transactions or determine whether the entire cash deposits were retained by the assessee or represented pass-through funds. It was therefore pleaded that, following the principle of consistency and based on the department’s own past treatment, the addition in the present year may also be confined to an estimation of commission income at 1% of the total cash deposits. 18. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and examined the materials on record. It is not in dispute that the total cash deposits amounting to Rs.16,94,93,035/- were found across four ICICI Bank accounts maintained by the assessee. The assessee neither produced books of account nor offered any satisfactory explanation for the said deposits despite issuance of multiple statutory notices under sections 142(1), 133(6), and 148. The reassessment was initiated on the basis of information that the assessee had advanced an unsecured loan of Rs. 9.80 crore to Shri Chimanbhai Kalubhai Patel out of these deposits, which was not recorded in the assessee’s books of account. The legal question before us is whether section 68 can be invoked in ITA No.1998/Ahd/2024 13 such circumstances. Section 68 applies where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof, or the explanation offered is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory. It is well settled that the presence of a credit in the assessee’s books is a condition precedent. However, we also take note of the specific factual context of the present case. The assessee is not a casual depositor or a salaried individual but a person who has consistently engaged in banking operations across multiple accounts, received contra confirmations, and has also faced similar scrutiny in A.Y. 2012–13, wherein he himself explained the cash deposits as turnover of finance/trading activity. There is also a linkage between these deposits and the unsecured loan alleged to have been given to Shri Chimanbhai Kalubhai Patel. 19. It is a settled position in law that whether or not books of account are maintained is a fact exclusively within the knowledge and control of the assessee. The deliberate omission to maintain books, or the failure to produce them despite having carried out voluminous banking transactions involving substantial cash flow, cannot be used as a shield to resist lawful inquiry. The principle that substance must prevail over form is particularly apposite to cases involving unexplained high-value transactions, where the totality of circumstances reveals concealment rather than mere technical omission. In the present case, the following undisputed facts are material: ITA No.1998/Ahd/2024 14 i. The assessee maintained multiple bank accounts with ICICI Bank; ii. Cash deposits to the tune of Rs.16.94 crore were made during the year under consideration; iii. A sum of Rs.9.80 crore was advanced as unsecured loan to one Shri Chimanbhai Kalubhai Patel, which was not recorded in any disclosed books; iv. The assessee did not respond to statutory notices, nor did he offer any explanation during assessment or appellate proceedings; v. No sales records, purchase bills, or ledgers were ever produced, despite claiming to be engaged in trading and finance; vi. The assessee had, in the preceding A.Y. 2012–13, voluntarily explained similar banking transactions as part of his finance business and the AO had, in that year, estimated income at 1% commission after considering such explanations. 20. These facts collectively demonstrate that the assessee’s conduct was not of a person unable to comply, but of one choosing not to comply, possibly with an intent to suppress material particulars of income. The assessee cannot approbate and reprobate, while admitting that the deposits funded an unsecured loan, he cannot simultaneously deny the existence of any records or obligation to explain the origin of funds. Even the affidavit filed before us admits that the failure to respond before the CIT(A) was due to “oversight” and lack of access to old records owing to change in professional representation. Such explanations, while possibly mitigating in ITA No.1998/Ahd/2024 15 some procedural contexts, cannot substitute for the statutory obligation to explain the source of high-value cash transactions, especially when opportunity was granted at multiple stages and no factual details were placed on record. 21. In this backdrop, the assessee’s technical plea that section 68 is inapplicable loses much of its force. When the assessee fails to discharge the primary burden of explanation, and the undisputed facts clearly point to the existence of unexplained money, the mere mis-labeling of the section of law by the Assessing Officer does not vitiate the substantive addition. Tax adjudication must rest on realities of the transaction, and not on the appearance or technical characterisation alone. We also find that the reliance placed by the assessee on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Mahesh Subhash Shukla v. ITO [ITA No. 3919/Mum/2024] is factually and legally distinguishable. In that case, the addition under section 68 was made in respect of a single bank deposit of Rs.30.83 lakh in a limited scrutiny assessment involving a salaried assessee who had no books of account, no business activity, and no linkage to any third-party transactions. The Tribunal, in those circumstances, held that section 68 was not attracted. However, the facts of the present case are fundamentally different. The assessee has admitted to having advanced a loan of Rs. 9.80 crore not reflected in his records, operated multiple bank accounts with structured cash deposits over the year, failed to offer even a prima facie explanation or evidence and previously offered similar transactions as part of finance business. These ITA No.1998/Ahd/2024 16 facts reflect a pattern of unaccounted activity, and cannot be equated with the isolated instance addressed in Mahesh Subhash Shukla (supra). Therefore, the legal ratio of that decision does not assist the assessee in the present factual scenario. Accordingly, we find no merit in the assessee’s contention that the addition should be deleted on the ground that section 68 was technically inapplicable. In our considered view, the addition is sustainable in substance under the broader provisions of the Act, including section 69 or section 69A, and the mere nomenclature employed by the Assessing Officer does not dilute the chargeability of the income under the Act. 22. Having dismissed the primary ground challenging the addition on legal grounds, we now proceed to consider the alternate plea advanced by the assessee during the course of hearing, whereby it was submitted that, even assuming the impugned cash deposits of Rs.16,94,93,035/- are to be brought to tax, the same ought not to be treated as the assessee’s undisclosed income in full. It was contended that the assessee was not the owner of the funds but merely acted as an intermediary in facilitating cash-based banking transactions on behalf of third parties, and thus the only real income assessable in the hands of the assessee would be commission or facilitation fee, embedded in the cash flow. The AR drew support from the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 in his own case for A.Y. 2012–13, wherein the Assessing Officer had accepted, on similar facts and pattern of banking activity, that the assessee was engaged in providing accommodation entries. ITA No.1998/Ahd/2024 17 In that year, the AO had examined total deposits and withdrawals, determined the banking turnover, and estimated commission income at 1%, leading to a net addition of Rs.17,24,020/- after allowing for income already declared. It was thus urged that a consistent approach may be adopted in the present year also, and the addition may be confined to an estimated percentage of gross deposits, rather than taxing the entire amount. We find the plea to be prima facie acceptable for consideration. The facts and pattern of transactions in the present year are substantially similar to those in A.Y. 2012–13, as evidenced by the presence of multiple ICICI Bank accounts, large-value cash deposits, and rotation of funds. However, the critical difference is that in the present year, the assessee failed to furnish any factual explanation or documentation before the Assessing Officer or CIT(A). The record before us also does not contain any independently verifiable material to assess whether the transactions were of a pass-through nature, or whether the assessee retained the entire sums for his own benefit. 23. In such circumstances, while the alternative plea for estimation merits examination, we are not inclined to accept the same straightaway at the Tribunal stage without factual verification. However, in the interest of justice, and in keeping with the principle of consistency, we are of the considered view that the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with a specific direction to verify the nature and pattern of the cash deposits in light of the facts accepted in A.Y. 2012– 13 and to decide whether estimation of commission income is ITA No.1998/Ahd/2024 18 warranted in the present year. Accordingly, we set aside the limited issue of quantum addition and restore the matter to the Assessing Officer with the following directions: a. The AO shall verify the assessee’s bank statements, flow of funds, and any available evidence to ascertain the nature of cash deposits including repayment of such loan, if any, in part or full. b. The AO shall specifically examine whether the assessee had engaged in providing accommodation entries or rotation of third-party funds, as accepted in A.Y. 2012–13. c. If the factual matrix is found to be similar, the AO shall estimate the income component, such as commission, on a reasonable basis and in accordance with law. 24. The assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to furnish supporting evidence, if any. The alternative plea of the assessee for estimation of income is accordingly accepted in principle, and the issue is restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in terms of directions above. 25. In the combined result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 6th June, 2025 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad, dated 06/06/2025 "