Mohd. Siraj Haji Mohd. Yasin Abala Vs ITO (ITAT Nagpur)
Onus on Assessee to Prove Cash Belonged to Employer, Not Himself – Ex-Parte 69A Additions Set Aside – Tribunal Restores Appeals for Fresh Hearing
Assessee filed three appeals challenging orders of CIT(A)/NFAC dated 25.03.2025 which upheld additions of unexplained money u/s 69A.
AO had made additions of ₹1.10 crore in AY 2014-15 & similar additions in AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18 based on large cash deposits found in Assessee’s bank account. CIT(A), despite issuing five notices, received no compliance from the Assessee & confirmed additions ex-parte.
Before Tribunal, Assessee explained that he was only working in a footwear shop on behalf of Janta Marketing, Yavatmal, & the cash deposits belonged to his employer Shri Avesh Abala, proprietor of Janta Marketing. It was argued that Assessee had merely deposited & withdrawn money on behalf of employer, hence addition in his hands was unjustified.
Tribunal noted that CIT(A) had passed the order without considering this explanation or examining supporting evidence. Since the issue involved required deeper verification to unearth the real nature of cash transactions, Tribunal held that interest of justice demanded a fresh examination. It remanded all three appeals back to CIT(A) with direction to decide afresh after giving opportunity to Assessee to substantiate his claim with cogent evidence. It was clarified that onus would be on the Assessee to prove genuineness of claim with concrete material.
