{
  "id": 18276904,
  "title": "Rs 35L cash, others names on insurance: Man gets notice, but ITAT gives relief",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/11/05/rs-35l-cash-others-names-on-insurance-man-gets-notice-but-itat-gives",
  "topic": "culture",
  "section": "Culture",
  "published": "2026-11-05T08:18:30.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Times of India",
    "slug": "times-of-india",
    "url": "https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/insurance-agent-deposited-rs-35-lakh-in-cash-collected-as-policy-premiums-tax-officer-called-it-unexplained-money-saying-his-name-was-missing-from-some-policies-why-itat-jaipur-gave-full-relief/articleshow/135563142.cms"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "In a recent case that has been favorably ruled upon by the ITAT Jaipur, an insurance agent was initially subjected to scrutiny by the Income Tax Department regarding unexplained cash deposits in his bank account. The agent had received Rs 35 lakh in cash, which was classified as \"unexplained money\" by the department. He asserted that these funds were indeed insurance premiums collected from his policyholders. However, the tax authorities did not find his explanation convincing as there were discrepancies in the insurance documents he submitted.\n\nThe insurance agent explained that he was entering into commission-sharing arrangements with agents from other insurance companies to meet his customers' requirements. He provided affidavits from these agents to confirm the transactions, which took place under the stipulations of the Insurance Act, limiting an agent to represent only one insurance company at a time. The agent further argued that he received commissions through these agents and that the transactions were routed through banking channels.\n\nThe Income Tax Department, however, found these explanations inadequate and proceeded against the agent for alleged tax evasion and possession of unexplained cash. The case reached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Jaipur, where it was ultimately decided in the insurance agent's favor on October 1, 2026. The ruling was based on the detailed evidence provided by the agent, including policy registers, cash flow statements, and bank records, which established that the cash deposits were from insurance premiums collected as part of his regular business activities.",
  "summary": "The insurance agent in the case deposited Rs 35 lakh in cash into his bank account. The department classified the amount as “unexplained money” and sought details of its source. The man maintained that the cash was not his personal money but represented insurance premiums collected from customers who had bought policies through him.",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}