2025 (6) TMI 713 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69A - cash deposits of demonetized Legal Tender (Specified Bank Notes of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000) during the period of demonetization - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT - The fact on record reveals that the assessee had placed the relevant documentary evidence to prove the source of cash deposits made during the demonetization period. Nothing has been brought on record by the Revenue to prove otherwise. We are thus inclined to agree with the submissions of the Ld. AR that there is no dispute with regard to the source of money i.e. cash deposited in the bank accounts which has been received by the assessee society from its members. We find that the case of the assessee is supported by the decision(s) of Ambika Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha 2024 (6) TMI 1470 - ITAT PUNE M/s. Mauli Mahila Nagari Sahakari Path Sanstha Ltd 2024 (9) TMI 1756 - ITAT PUNE and Shrijeet Finance Pvt. Ltd. 2024 (6) TMI 1020 - ITAT PUNE wherein under the similar set of facts as that of the assessee in the present appeal the Tribunal deleted the addition u/s 68/69A of the Act in respect of cash deposited during the demonetization period. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Decided against revenue.

Summary

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal pertain to the validity of the addition made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of cash deposits of demonetized Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) during the demonetization period. Specifically, the issues are:

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 7,90,34,500/- made under section 69A on account of cash deposits of demonetized legal tender notes by the assessee society was justified, given that the assessee was allegedly not authorized to accept such deposits during the demonetization period as per Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Circular No. RB1/2016-17/112 DCM (Plg) No. 1226/10.27.00/2016-17 dated 08.11.2016.

2. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in not considering the various RBI guidelines and circulars issued during demonetization, including the aforementioned circular and Circular No. RBI/2016-17/130 DCM(Pig) No. 1273/10.27.00/2016-17 dated 14.11.2016, while deciding the appeal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

Issue 1: Legitimacy of Addition under Section 69A for Cash Deposits of Demonetized SBNs

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 69A of the Income Tax Act empowers the Assessing Officer (AO) to treat any amount found to be deposited in a bank account as unexplained money if the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the source of such money. The demonetization exercise by the Government of India in November 2016 led to restrictions on acceptance of old currency notes (SBNs) post 08.11.2016, as per RBI circulars. The Revenue contended that the assessee society was not authorized to accept such notes during the demonetization period, and hence the deposits were liable to be treated as unexplained under section 69A.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the AO made the addition solely on the ground that the assessee was not authorized to accept SBNs post 08.11.2016, without questioning or doubting the source of the cash deposits. The CIT(A) had examined the details and explanations furnished by the assessee, including sample data of 67,000 depositors, and found the deposits to be consistent with the usual business activity of the society.

The CIT(A) analyzed the aggregate cash deposits and loan portfolio over three assessment years (AY 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19) and concluded that the cash deposits during the demonetization period were not abnormally high but in line with the growth of the society's operations. The average deposit per depositor was Rs. 1,179.62, well within the Rs. 4,000 per head limit allowed by the RBI notification during demonetization.

The Tribunal further observed that the assessee had provided comprehensive details such as the full name, address, and state of the depositors, which could have been verified by the AO but was not challenged. The AO's assertion that the society was unauthorized to accept SBNs lacked any documentary evidence or RBI guideline support.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee submitted detailed records of cash deposits and withdrawals, sample depositor details, and comparative data of loan portfolios and cash flows across relevant years. The absence of any adverse material from the Revenue to disprove the source of deposits was critical. The Tribunal also relied on coordinate bench decisions where similar additions under sections 68 and 69A were deleted on analogous facts.

Application of Law to Facts: Since the source of cash deposits was satisfactorily explained and supported by documentary evidence, and the AO failed to produce any contradictory evidence, the addition under section 69A was not sustainable. The mere fact that the deposits were in SBNs during demonetization did not automatically render them unexplained money.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue emphasized the non-compliance with RBI circulars and the unauthorized acceptance of SBNs by the society. However, the Tribunal found no documentary or legal basis for the AO's claim that the society was prohibited from accepting such notes. The assessee's explanation of the deposits being from its members in the ordinary course of business was accepted, and the Revenue's argument was rejected.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 7,90,34,500/- under section 69A was rightly deleted by the CIT(A), and the Tribunal upheld this deletion.

Issue 2: Consideration of RBI Guidelines and Circulars in the Appeal

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The RBI circulars issued during demonetization set out the regulatory framework for handling SBNs. The Revenue argued that these guidelines should have been considered by the CIT(A) in deciding the appeal.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did consider the relevant RBI circulars and found that the AO's assertion of unauthorized acceptance was not supported by any documentary evidence or specific RBI guideline. The CIT(A)'s order reflects a detailed examination of the facts in light of the RBI notifications.

Application of Law to Facts: Since the CIT(A) did consider the RBI circulars and found no prohibition applicable to the assessee's receipt of SBNs from its members, the contention that the CIT(A) ignored these guidelines was unfounded.

Conclusion: The CIT(A) was justified in his approach and decision, and the Revenue's contention on this ground was dismissed.

Significant Holdings

"The assertion of the Ld. AO that 'Patsansthas' were not authorized to receive old notes has not been supported by any documentary evidence or RBI guideline."

"The amount of cash deposits was in accordance with the usual activity of the appellant and was not abnormally high."

"The sum deposited per depositor is within the limit of Rs. 4,000/- per head allowed as per the RBI notification at the time of demonetization."

"The assessee has offered plausible explanation for the cash deposits and has furnished all requisite details regarding the source of cash."

"In absence of any contrary material brought on record by the Revenue, the addition made by the Ld. AO is not sustainable."

"We uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Ld. AO to delete the addition made by him to the income of the assessee of Rs. 7,90,34,500/- u/s 69A of the Act."

Core principles established include that an addition under section 69A cannot be sustained if the assessee satisfactorily explains the source of cash deposits, even if such deposits are in demonetized currency notes during the demonetization period, unless the Revenue proves otherwise by credible evidence. Mere non-compliance with RBI circulars, without documentary proof or adverse material, does not justify treating deposits as unexplained income.