PCIT Vs Sushil Kumar Sharma (Allahabad High Court)
In appeal u/s 260A Hon’ble Allahabad HC concluded that mere depositing amount in his own bank account instead of bank account of the contract signee does not attract provision of section 69A.
The assessee was engaged in the business of providing security, housekeeping, manpower supply since 2009. During FY 2016-17 assessee signed agreement with FRB (First Rand Bank) for collection of loan instalments from the micro borrowers who are thousands in number spread all over the region in Mumbai. Assessee collected monthly instalments from the borrowers on behalf of the FRB and money collected from the borrowers was deposited in assessee’s bank account maintained with ICICI, HDFC and Axis Bank. The money in turn was deposited by the assessee with the account of the FRB. The assessee was charging fees and monthly bills were raised. During the financial year, the assessee earned fees of Rs. 8.91 crores from the FRB which was added by AO u/s 69A. CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal by deleting addition except for the demonetization period. Before ITAT, both assessee and revenue department filed appeal. ITAT held that that merely because certain cash deposits in the Specified Bank Notes by the assessee during the demonetization period, the same did not make the deposit as tainted when the very same transactions were being made by the assessee in the past and have been accepted by the CIT(A). It was not the case of the revenue that the assessee was not in receipt of Specified Bank Notes from the customers of the FRB. Hence, revenue filed the present appeal u/s 260A.
