Anthony Rockey Avera Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Section 69A & The Credit Card That Paid Students’ Exam Fees – Fresh Evidence Earns A Fresh Hearing, Not Instant Deletion
₹11.17 lakh credit-card payments questioned
The AO noticed payments aggregating to ₹11,17,000 through the assessee’s SBI credit card. Since the assessee did not satisfactorily explain the source of the cash utilised for settling the credit-card bills, the AO treated the amount as unexplained & made an addition u/s 69A.
The assessee did not make proper compliance or furnish sufficient documentary evidence during the assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) consequently confirmed the addition.
Before the ITAT, the assessee produced an affidavit, credit-card statements, bank statements & details explaining the commercial background of the transactions. He requested admission of these documents as additional evidence & restoration of the issue to the AO for verification.
A new educational venture behind the transactions
The assessee explained that he had set up a company named ASA Technology together with one Vineet Raghavan, who possessed experience in educational tie-ups & coordination of students for practical training programmes.
Since the company was newly established, it did not satisfy certain eligibility or operational requirements for making international payments.
Various students were required to pay examination fees in US dollars, and such payments could be made only through international credit cards. The students therefore approached the assessee to facilitate payment of their examination fees.
According to the assessee, he used his credit card for paying the students’ examination fees. The amounts subsequently received from the students represented reimbursement of those fees & were utilised for settling the corresponding credit-card bills.
Thus, the credit-card payments did not represent the assessee’s unexplained personal expenditure. They were allegedly facilitation payments made on behalf of identifiable students in connection with examinations conducted outside India.
Evidence produced for the first time before ITAT
To substantiate this explanation, the assessee furnished:
- His affidavit explaining the nature of the educational activity & circumstances surrounding the payments;
- The complete SBI credit-card statement for FY 2016-17;
- A summary of cash receipts from students & their utilisation;
- Details relating to examination fees paid on behalf of various students; &
- Bank statements of the assessee’s accounts with ICICI Bank & HDFC Bank.
These documents had not been furnished before the AO or CIT(A).
The assessee admitted that there had been a failure to make proper compliance before the lower authorities. However, he contended that the additional evidence went to the root of the disputed addition & was essential for determining whether the money represented unexplained funds or mere reimbursement of examination fees paid on behalf of students.
Revenue opposes a second opportunity
The Revenue argued that the assessee had failed to demonstrate any reasonable cause for not furnishing the documents during the original assessment or appellate proceedings.
According to the Revenue, a person who had neglected the earlier opportunities should not be permitted to improve his case by producing a completely new evidentiary record before the Tribunal. It therefore requested that the additional evidence be rejected & the addition confirmed.
Relevant evidence cannot be shut out merely because it arrived late
The ITAT observed that the original addition had been made precisely because the assessee failed to produce adequate material explaining the credit-card expenditure & the source of payments made towards the card bills.
The documents now produced—including the complete credit-card statement, bank statements & student-wise summary—were directly relevant to that enquiry. They could assist in determining:
- Whether the credit card was actually used to pay examination fees for students;
- Whether the amounts received were genuine reimbursements;
- Whether the receipts corresponded with the examination-fee payments; &
- Whether the source of settlement of the credit-card bills stood satisfactorily explained.
The Tribunal considered these documents essential for complete adjudication. Rejecting them outright would result in deciding the taxability of ₹11.17 lakh without examining evidence bearing directly upon its nature and source.
The ITAT therefore admitted the additional evidence.
Admission of evidence is not acceptance of the explanation
The Tribunal did not delete the addition merely on the basis of the affidavit or documents produced for the first time before it.
Whether the students actually reimbursed the assessee, whether the payment particulars correspond with the credit-card entries & whether the alleged cash receipts genuinely explain the settlement of the bills require factual verification by the AO.
The matter was therefore restored to the AO for fresh examination of the entire evidence & passing of a fresh assessment order in accordance with law.
The AO was directed to provide the assessee a fair & reasonable opportunity of being heard before reaching any conclusion.
A second chance comes with a warning
While granting another opportunity, the Tribunal also took note of the assessee’s earlier failure to comply properly before the lower authorities.
The assessee was expressly directed to remain more vigilant in future & not commit any further default in furnishing information or responding to proceedings within time.
The remand therefore did not amount to an unconditional endorsement of the assessee’s conduct. It merely ensured that the substantive tax dispute was determined after examining relevant evidence rather than exclusively on account of the earlier procedural lapse.
Decision
The ITAT admitted the affidavit, credit-card statement, summary of student receipts & utilisation, and ICICI Bank & HDFC Bank statements as additional evidence.
The issue concerning the ₹11.17 lakh addition u/s 69A was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after proper verification & reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The addition was neither finally confirmed nor deleted. The assessee’s appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/ADDL/JCIT(A)-2, Chandigarh dated 04.02.2026 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 11,17,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. The action in unjustified and unwarranted as the amount represents credit card payments.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in not considering the submissions made during appellate proceedings juridically. The action in unjustified and unwarranted.
3. The Your petitioners crave leave to add, amend, alter and/or withdraw all or any of aforesaid grounds of appeal.”
2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that the assessing officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 11,17,000/- under section 69A of the Income-tax Act on account of payment of source of cash payment of credit card bills (SBI credit card). The assessee could not make compliance before the lower authorities. The assessee has now filed an Application for Admission of Additional evidence in the form of an affidavit of Anthony Rocky Avera (assessee).The learned AR of the assessee submits that the assessee has set up a company namely ASA Technology with Vineet Raghavan, who had experience in educational tie-ups and students coordination for various practical training sessions. The company set up by assessee and Vineet Raghavan was new and did not meet certain criteria, thus for the purpose of international examination fees of students, which were payable in USD and could be paid by international credit cards only. The students approached him for payment of their examination fees through international credit cards. The assessee facilitated them in making payment of the examination fees through his credit cards. The assessee has furnished relevant evidence about payment of such fees of various students. Such evidence could not be furnished during assessee and is relevant and essential for complete adjudication of the issue. Therefore, the additional evidence may be admitted and, for verification of the facts, the matter may be restored to the file of the AO. The assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed if the additional evidences are considered.
3. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (Sr DR) for the Revenue submits that the assessee has not shown any reasonable cause as to why such evidence was not furnished before the lower authorities. The additional evidence may not be admitted and the additions made by the lower authorities may be confirmed.
4. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. We find that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO made an addition on account of unexplained expenditure incurred through SBI credit card and source of cash payment was not explained by assessee. The addition was made for want of sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate such expenditure. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. Before us, the assessee has filed an affidavit of assessee in support of additional evidence, inter alia, contending that he had used his credit card for making payment of examination fees of various students. The assessee has also furnished the credit card statement for the entire financial year 2016-17, along with a summary of cash receipts and utilisation, as well as bank statements of ICICI Bank and HDFC Bank. We find that these evidences were not furnished before the lower authorities. In our considered view, the aforesaid evidences are essential for complete adjudication of the issue before us. Therefore, keeping in view the nature and relevance of the additional evidence the additional evidences are accepted / admitted and matter is restored back to the file of AO to reconsider the matter along with the evidences and for passing a fresh assessment order in accordance with law. Needless to direct that before passing the order, the AO shall provide a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future and not to make any further default in making timely compliance before the lower authorities.
5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order was pronounced in open court on 17/08/2026
