IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 529/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 ITO, Etawah, (U.P)- Vs. Anurag Porwal, 24, Mandir Dan Sahay, 206001 Girdharipura, Bharthana, Etawah- (U.P)

206242 PAN : CLDPP7311K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by None Department by Shri Anil Kumar, Sr DR Date of hearing 21.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 21.01.2026 ORDER PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM.

The assessee preferred this appeal against the impugned order dated

10.09.2025 passed in Appeal No NFAC/2022-23/10459942 u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act), wherein ld CIT(A) has deleted the addition of Rs. 1,99,83,660/- made vide assessment order dated 20.03.2025 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act.

2. The brief facts relating to the appeal state that assessee e-filed return of income for the A.Y. 2023-24 on 31.12.2023, declaring total income at Rs. 4,09,390/-. Assessee had further shown income from business and profession at Rs. 3,50,880/- as presumptive income u/s 44AD out of gross receipts of Rs. 7,29,138/- the return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to examine the nature of high value cash withdrawals and the correctness of turnover. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) r.w.s 142(1) of the Act and various show cause notices were issued. Assessee did not file any reply in response thereof. The ex-parte assessment was thus competed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act, vide assessment order dated 20.03.2025. The assessee’s income from business was estimated at the rate of 6% of gross turnover or gross receipts of Rs. 33,89,09,000/- and after adjusting the declared income, the balance of Rs. 1,99,83,660/- was added in the total income of the assessee.

3. Assessee, preferred an appeal before the ld CIT(A), who deleted the said addition of Rs. 1,99,83,660/-.

4. Aggrieved, revenue has preferred this second appeal against the impugned order on the following grounds:

“1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax Appeals CIT Appeal erred in law and on facts by admitting and relying upon fresh evidence material, particularly the ATM Service Agreement Annexure II and OR additional explanations documentation relating to the nature of bank transactions, without affording a proper and effective opportunity to the Assessing Officer for examination and necessary verification. This action is in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and the principles of natural justice.

2. The learned CIT Appeal erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,99,83,660 by wrongly holding that the gross receipts of Rs. 33,89,09,000 credited in the assessee’s bank account were merely pass through transactions and not the assessee’s turnover OR 'gross receipts for the purpose of the Income Tax Act.

3. The learned CIT Appeal erred in accepting the net income (commission income) approach as the sole measure of taxable profit, thereby treating a substantial cash flow, gross receipt as non-taxable, without a conclusive and verifiable legal finding that such a method of accounting is correct OR permissible under the facts of the case, especially when the assessee did not maintain books OR get them audited.

4. That the appellant craves leave to add OR DLEETE OR alter OR modify any one OR more grounds of appeal during the appellate proceedings.”

5. Appellant revenue is represented by the ld Sr DR. None responded for the respondent assessee. Perused the records and heard ld Sr DR for the appellant revenue.

6. The main point for determination under appeal is as to whether the ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,99,83,660/- by accepting and relying on the additional evidences without affording an opportunity to the assessing officer in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

7. Ld Sr DR for the appellant revenue has submitted that the assessee mis