MANI SHANKAR SINGH,BALLIA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), BALLIA

ITA 3/VNS/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Mani Shankar Singh against an order by the NFAC Delhi, which had confirmed the addition of Rs.13,94,000 to his income for the Assessment Year 2017-18, considering it as unexplained cash deposits. The assessee, functioning as a 'Bank Mitra' for SBI, was responsible for handling cash deposits and withdrawals on behalf of bank customers. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) had treated these deposits as unexplained money, leading to the addition to the assessee's income. The Tribunal, however, found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence showing that the deposits were not his personal income but were transactions conducted on behalf of his customers. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition, allowing the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 26031 (ITAT-VARANASI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Next Hearing Date: 12-09-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVITA MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBHASH CHA ND
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CIRCUIT BENCH, VARANASI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.03/VNS/2024 (Assessment Year :2017-18) Mani Shankar Singh Nagpura, Tikadeori Central Bank Nagpura Ballia-221701 Uttar Pradesh Vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2(4) Ballia PAN/GIR No.EVQPS2048M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Subhash Chand Revenue by Smt. Kavita Meena Date of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date of Pronouncement 29/11/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 28/12/2023 passed by NFAC Delhi for the quantum of the assessment passed u/s 143(3) for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. In various grounds of appeal assessee has challenged addition of Rs.13,94,000/- on account of cash deposits in the bank account. 3. The brief facts are that assessee is ‘Bank Mitra’, a bank correspondence of SBI and run CSP counter. For running CSP counter, assessee is agreement with FIA Technology Services for ITA No.3/VNS/2024 Mani Shankar Singh, Ballia 2 which assessee gets commission income while assisting the public for deposit and withdrawals from Bank. This commission income has been declared in its return of income. Apart from that assessee had also shown income from teaching, photo /photocopy and bank interest. Accordingly, return of income was filed of Rs. 2,42,812/-. Ld. AO noted that assessee has deposited SBN notes of Rs.13,94,000/- on 12/11/2016 in his bank account which has not been disclosed in the return of income. 4. In response to the notice by the AO assessee submitted as under:- “I'm running a CSP counter of state Bank of India from 2013 and getting commission for this and the agreement is between FIA Technology Services and me for CSP counter of State Bank of India. Cash deposit during demonitisation period has not been incorporated with my return of income. That was withdrawal-ed earlier from my business/current account for CSP counter and I'm served you the evidence for deposits in Demonitisation period and all the credits/transfer to my account is not my income. This is the only for improving my business/commissions purpose for my CSP counter. Please find the all attachments. Sir if you want any other communications to me please communicate through e-mail/E-proceedings because I'm not able to manual documents presents and I'm unable to serve you by hand. Please take this matter online only. I'm out of city.\" 5. However, ld. AO held that assessee had failed to prove the source of illegal currency. Further, assessee before the ld. AO clarified that out of deposit of Rs.13,94,000/-, the amount of Rs.1,17,000/- was transferred from his mother’s account. However, the ld. AO treated the entire cash deposit of Rs.13,94,000/- as unexplained money of the assessee. The ld. ITA No.3/VNS/2024 Mani Shankar Singh, Ballia 3 CIT(A) has confirmed the said addition after referring to various judgments. 6. After considering the submissions made by both the parties and on perusal of the relevant finding given in the impugned orders as well as material placed before us, it is seen that assessee is a ‘Bank Mitra’ who collects and deposits money from and behalf of the accounts holders in SBI and makes payment to them. All the money deposited and withdrawn is in fiduciary capacity and on behalf of the people. He had made withdrawal of Rs.69,00,000/- from the current account on 29/10/2016 and had received cash of Rs.70,00,000/- from various customers from 09/11/2016 to 12/11/2016 which was transferred to his current account on the same date and later on deposited with bank. Once it is an accepted fact that assessee is Bank Mitra duly authorised by the bank to collect deposits on behalf of the customers, then to treat any cash deposits in his hands as ‘unexplained money’ r his income would be too arbitrary. Before us, ld. Counsel had submitted the entire details of bank account statement and also list of various customer accounts which has been placed on the paper book form pages 22-30. These details reflects the date of receipt of cash transaction amount, transaction date, reference number and the type of transaction and from which account it has come and which account it has been deposited. These transactions aggregate to more than 265 entries. These details have neither been considered nor commented upon by the ld. AO or ld. CIT (A). These details prove that that none of the cash deposits belong to the assessee. Once ITA No.3/VNS/2024 Mani Shankar Singh, Ballia 4 assessee had filed all these details that money does not belong to him but he is collecting and depositing on behalf of the customers, then any cash deposited cannot be treated as unexplained money in the hands of the money. Accordingly, the addition made by the ld.AO is deleted because it is not a case of any unexplained money belonging to the assessee which has been deposited. Further, in so far as amount of Rs.1,17,000/- out of the said deposits, once it has been claimed that the said amount was deposited in his mother’s bank account from where it has been transferred to his bank account then in so far as assessee is concerned, it cannot be treated as ‘unexplained cash deposit’. Accordingly, the entire addition of Rs.13,94,000/- is deleted. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 29/11/2024. Sd/- (AMIT SHUKLA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Varanasi; Dated 29/11/2024 KARUNA, sr.ps Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), Varanasi. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Varanasi 6. Guard file. //True Copy// ITA No.3/VNS/2024 Mani Shankar Singh, Ballia 5 BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Varanasi "