Shyam Singh Hetta Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh)
The case involved an appeal filed by the assessee, Shyam Singh Hetta, a resident individual engaged as a private contractor, retail trader, and commission agent with DTM Pvt. Ltd. The appeal was directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] dated March 20, 2024, for the assessment year 2017-18.
Background and Lower Authority Orders
The assessee had filed a return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 declaring a total income of ₹2,95,760/-. The case was selected for scrutiny due to large cash deposits made during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted total cash deposits of ₹19,04,800/- in various bank accounts of the assessee and treated the entire amount as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, completing the assessment on December 19, 2019.
The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), NFAC, but the CIT(A) upheld the addition, observing that the assessee failed to produce sufficient evidence. The assessee subsequently filed this appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
Assessee’s and Revenue’s Arguments
The assessee’s Authorized Representative (AR) contended that the assessee was merely a working agent of DTM Pvt. Ltd. and earned only commission income. The deposited sums, argued the AR, did not belong to the assessee personally but represented membership fees collected on behalf of the company.
