Shri. Krishnamurthy Nagaraj, Arasikere V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Hassan

ITA 681/BANG/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 102 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0348 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 30-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 68; 69; 250; 69A; 72; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT ITA No.681/Bang/2023 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Krishnamurthy Nagaraj, Propriotor : Sri Krishna Electricals, Shop No.2, Sri Krishan Mansion, B. H. Road, Arasikere – 573 103, Hassan District, Karnataka. PAN : ABNPN 7284 M Vs.ACIT, Circle – 1, Hassan. APPELLANTRESPONDENT Assessee by:Shri.V. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue by :Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue. Date of hearing:31.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement:31.10.2023 O R D E R This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 08.08.2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18. 2. The solitary issue that is raised is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition of Rs.13,27,900/- made by the AO. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Assessee is an individual engaged in the business of trading of electrical goods. For the Assessment Year 2017-18, the return of income was filed on 07.11.2017 declaring a total income of Rs.19,09,360/-. Assessment was selected ITA No.681/Bang/2023 Page 2 of 16 for limited scrutiny to verify the source of cash deposits made in the bank account during the demonetization period. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that assessee had deposited total cash amounting to Rs.15,11,700/- in Specified Bank Notes (SBN) (old notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/-) from 10.11.2016 to 19.12.2016 in his bank account with Canara Bank. The cash balance as per the statement submitted by the assessee as on 08.11.2016 was Rs.1,83,626/-. Assessee submitted that cash remittance into the bank account are recorded in the books of accounts regularly maintained by him and are out of sales receipts in the normal course of his business. The AO, however, rejected the contention of the assessee. The AO held that assessee is in the business of trading of electrical goods and was not authorized entities / persons to collect the cash in SBNs during the demonetization period. The AO concluded that since assessee could not have collected cash in SBNs after 08.11.2016, the cash deposited in SBNs cannot be considered to be explained and added the same to tax under section 69A of the Act. The AO also applied the special rates of tax under section 115BBE of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the assessment, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The CIT(A) held that assessee has not produced the evidence in support of the source of cash deposits made. Further, the CIT(A) held that subsequent to the demonetization, the SBNs (old notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/-) were not legal tender and assessee was not authorized person to accept the same. Consequently, the source of deposit of receipts of these SBNs from trade debtors cannot be held to be valid. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was upheld by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) also interchanged the addition from section 69 to 69A of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed a Paper Book enclosing therein ITA No.681/Bang/2023 Page 3 of 16 the audited financial statements of the assessee for the relevant period, copy of the written submission filed before CIT(A), copy of the sales tax returns, turnover for the years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18, notices issued, etc. The learned AR reiterated the submissions that assessee being in the business of trading of electrical goods had received amounts due to him from the trade debtors in the SBNs which were deposited with the Canara Bank. It was submitted that the books of accounts of the assessee are audited and the cash that is received from trade debtors were disclosed as part of the income of the assessee and had suffered the tax. Therefore, taxing the same again under section 69/69A of the Act would tantamount to double taxation and is not justified. 6. The learned Standing Counsel supported the orders of the AO and CIT(A). 7. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The AO and the CIT(A) had made the impugned addition solely for the reason that assessee was not authorized person to accept the SBNs subsequent to the demonetization. Since the SBNs were not legal tender, it was concluded by the AO and the CIT(A) that the source of cash deposit cannot be accepted. The AO and the CIT(A) have not examined / verified the source of the cash deposits. On identical facts, I have, in the case of Smt. Malapur Mounika Vs. ITO in ITA No.599/Bang/2023 (order dated 30.10.2023), held that SBNs are though not legal tender, assessee is not precluded from accepting the same upto the “appointed day” mentioned in SBN (Cessation of Liabilities Act, 2017) and accepting of the SBNs upto the appointed date i.e., 31.12.2016 in discharging of a debt, the person concerned cannot be penalized. The relevant finding of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Malapur Mounika Vs. ITO (supra) read as follows: ITA No.681/Bang/2023 Page 4 of 16 “7. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. During the demonetization period, a sum of Rs.25,41,000/- was deposited in SBN in the bank account of the assessee. The assessee had explained the said source of cash deposit of Rs.8,13,384/- as made out of the closing cash balance as per books of account on 08.11.2016, which has been accepted by the AO. The balance sum of Rs.17,28,000/- was explained by the assessee to be from out of amounts realized from debtors vide her reply dated 29.07.2018. The AO held that the assessee has violated the notification No.S.O.3408(E) dated 08.11.2016 issued by the RBI wherein the legal tender character of old bank notes in the denomination of Rs.500 and Rs.1000 was withdrawn w.e.f. 08.11.2016 and assessee was not authorized by the Government of India to collect the SBNs. Therefore it was concluded by the AO that a sum of Rs.17,28,000/- is to be added under section 69A of the Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee also for the same reason by holding that assessee was not allowed to accept the SBNs. 8. The RBI had permitted the assessee to deposit SBN into the bank account on or before ‘appointed date’. The banks were asked to accept the same before the ‘appointed date’. The SBNs (Cessation of Liabilities Act, 2017) defines ‘appointed day’ vide section 2(1)(a) of the Act. “Appointed Day” means 31 st day of December, 2016. Section 5 of the SBNs Cessation of Liabilities Act, 2017 also deals with prohibition of holding, transferring or receiving SBNs. Section 5 states as under : “5. On and from the appointed day, no person shall, knowingly or voluntarily, hold, transfer or receive any specified bank note: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall prohibit the holding of specified bank notes— (a) by any person— (i) up to the expiry of the grace period; or (ii) after the expiry of the grace period,— (A) not more than ten notes in total, irrespective of the denomination; or (B) not more than twenty-five notes for the purposes of study, research or numismatics; (b) by the Reserve Bank or its agencies, or any other person authorised by the Reserve Bank; (c) by any person on the direction of a court in relation to any case pending in the court.” ITA No.681/Bang/2023 Page 5 of 16 9. Therefore, the bar on holding and transferring or receiving SBNs is only after the ‘appointed day’ which is 31.12.2016. In view of the above, there is no violation by the assessee of any law in accepting SBNs for the purpose of cash sales and considering it to be a due discharge of debt. Furthermore, even the CBDT had issued various Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) instructing the AOs on the nature of verification to be made in cases where cash has been deposited in SBNs. The following instructions have been issued: [a]Instruction No. 03/2017 dated 21/02/2017 [b] Instruction No. 04/2017 dated 03/03/2017 [c] Circular in F No. 225/363/2017-ITA.II dated 15/11/2017; [d] Circular in F No. 225/145/2019-ITA.II dated 09/08/2019 10. On perusal of Circular F.No.225/145/2017-ITA 11 dated 09.08.2019 (enclosed as Annexure – 6 to the written submission), it is evident that AO has to examine the cash deposits made during the demonetization period in the case of businesses in accordance with the SOP laid down in the aforesaid circular. Only in cases where the assessee is unable to explain the source of the cash deposits made, can the said sum be treated as unexplained. In the instant case, it was claimed by the assessee that the entire sales made by her are recorded in the books of accounts and offered to tax. The sole reason for both AO and CIT(A) for making / sustaining the addition under section 69A of the Act was that subsequent to 08.11.2016, the SBNs were not legal tender and assessee was not person authorized to collect SBNs. The AO and the CIT(A) has not examined the veracity of source of cash deposits. 11. The Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Anantpur Kalpana in ITA No.541/Bang/2021 held that accepting SBNs subsequent to 08.11.2016 cannot be sole reason for making addition under section 69A of the Act. The relevant arguments raised before the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal and the findings read as follows: “4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid addition, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and submitted that the cash deposits of Rs. 4,50,500/- in question was the cash collection from the small and medium class traders collected on various dates out of the business of the Assessee which were deposited in the bank account of the Assessee between 10/11/2016 and 19/12/2016 in CBS Bank and Axis Bank. Since the deposit of Rs. 4,50,500/- in her bank account are from the sale proceeds from distribution of FMCG goods relating to her business ITA No.681/Bang/2023 Page 6 of 16 concern 'M/s. Mahalakshmi Enterprise' from small and medium class traders collected on various dates in discharge of their liability in 1000 rupee and 500 rupee notes. It was submitted that old demonetized notes could be accepted till 30-12-2016 and a payee can continue to accept old demonetized notes of Rs 500 or Rs 1000 since those notes can be accepted as valid tender and there is no prohibition or lawful direction not to pay or accept old notes. The old notes still continue to be convertible into money since any person who is validly in possession of the old notes can get them converted into egal tender from banks or can tender it for payment to specified transactions. There are no rules forbidding the payments in old notes. Therefore it is not correct to say that the old notes do not carry any value. It was submitted that the Assessee’s nature of business involves dealing with small and medium class traders and is predominantly cash oriented. The Assessee is maintaining regular books of accounts and the said books are subject to compulsory audit under the provisions of section 44AB of the Act. The Assessee is also filing its VAT Returns in connection to the purchases and sales made by it to the concerned authority. It was submitted that the impugned addition made is nothing but the sales made by the Assessee. The Assessee relied on decision of ITAT Indore Bench in the case of DEWAS SOYA LTD, UJJAIN v/s Income Tax (Appeal No 336/Ind/2012 wherein on identical facts of the case it was held that the claim of the assessee that such addition resulted into double taxation of the same income in the same year because on one hand cost of the sales has been taxed (after deducting gross profit from same price ultimately credited to profit & loss account) and on the other hand amounts received from above parties has also been added u/s. 68 of the Act. 5. The CIT(A) however did not accept the contention of the assessee. He held that once the Rs.500 and Rs.1000 notes are declared as not valid legal tender on 09.11.2016, the assessee cannot accept cash payments after 09.11.2016 that are demonetized and doing so was patently illegal. The CIT(A) therefore held that the plea of the asessee cannot be accepted and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. ITA No.681/Bang/2023 Page 7 of 16 6. I have heard the rival submissions. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that both the AO and CIT(A) accepted the fact that the cash receipts are nothing but sale proceeds in the business of the assessee. The addition has been made only on the basis that after demonetization, the demonetized notes could not have been accepted as valid tender. He submitted that the sale proceeds for which cash was received from the customers was already admitted as income and if the cash deposits are added under section 68 of the Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which is against the principles of taxation. It was also submitted that the assessee was having only one source of income from beedi, tea power and pan masala and therefore provisions of section 115BBE of the Act will have no application so as to treat the income of the assessee as income from other sources. It was also submitted that the government permitted all to deposit old demonetized notes upto 31.12.2016. Since the amounts deposited were sale proceeds of business and the income from the business have already been taxed, the impugned addition should be deleted. Our attention was also drawn to section 26(2) of the RBI Act, 1934 which provides that government can specify certain notes as not legal tender. It was argued that if there is any violation of the statutory provisions, the consequences will be only under the relevant provisions of RBI Act, 1934 and those violations cannot lead to any addition under section 68 of the Act. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements rendered on identical facts of the case as that of the assessee. Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal in the case of CIT Vs. Associated Transport Pvt. Ltd. reported in 84 Taxman 146 wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand in the books of account of the assessee, therefore, held that there was no reason to treat this amount as income from undisclosed sources and it was not a fit case for treating the said amount as concealed income of the assessee. The revenue moved to Hon'ble Calcutta High Court against the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court has confirmed the order of the Tribunal while deleting the penalty; the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta held as under: "8. The Tribunal was of the view that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand. In the books of account of the assessee, cash balance was usually more than Rs.81,000/-. There is no reason to treat this amount as ITA No.681/Bang/2023 Page 8 of 16 income from undisclosed sources. It is not a fit case for treating the amount of Rs.81,000/- as concealed income of the assessee and consequently imposition of penalty was also not justified in this case." 7. Further reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Vishakapatnam Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Hirapanna Jewelers in ITA No. 253/Viz/2020 wherein, the Hon'ble Tribunal while considering the issue of implication of Sec. 68 of the Act during demonetization held as under: 9. In view of the foregoing discussion and taking into consideration of all the facts and the circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the cash receipts represent the sales which the assessee has rightly offered for taxation. We have gone through the trading account and find that there was sufficient stock to effect the sales and we do not find any defect in the stock as well as the sales. Since, the assessee has already admitted the sales as revenue receipt, there is no case for making the addition u/s 68 or tax the same u/s 115BBE again. This view is also supported by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kailash Jewellery House (Supra) and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd. (supra),Hence, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. 10. The assessee filed cross objections supporting the order of the Id. CIT(A). Since, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, the cross objection filed by the assessee becomes infructuous, hence, dismissed. 11. In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed." 8. Learned DR reiterated the stand of the Revenue as reflected in the order of the CIT(A). 9. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. Both the AO and CIT(A) accepted the fact that the cash receipts are nothing but sale proceeds in the business of the assessee. The addition has been made only on the basis that after demonetization, the demonetized notes could not have been ITA No.681/Bang/2023 Page 9 of 16 accepted as valid tender. Since the sale proceeds for which cash was received from the customers was already admitted as income and if the cash deposits are added under section 68 of the Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which is against the principles of taxation. It is also on record that the assessee was having only one source of income from trading in beedi, tea power and pan masala and therefore provisions of section 115BBE of the Act will have no application so as to treat the income of the assessee as income from other sources. Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal in the case of CIT Vs. Associated Transport Pvt. Ltd. reported in 84 Taxman 146 on identical facts took the view that when cash sales are admitted and income from sales are declared as income, wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand in the books of account of the assessee, that there was no reason to treat the cash deposits as income from undisclosed sources. The Hon'ble Vishakapatnam Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Hirapanna Jewelers in ITA No. 253/Viz/2020 on identical facts held that when cash receipts represent the sales which the assessee has offered for taxation and when trading account shows sufficient stock to effect the sales and when no defects are pointed out in the books of account, it was held that when Assessee already admitted the sales as revenue receipt, there is no case for making the addition u/s 68 or tax the same u/s 115BBE again. I am of the view that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the addition made is not sustainable and the same is directed to be deleted.” 12. The Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Purani Hospital Supplies Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No.489/Chny/2022 had also taken a similar view. The relevant finding of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal reads as follows: “8. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The facts borne out from records indicates that the assessee is in the business of distribution of pharmaceutical goods, surgical and diagnostics goods, which is considered to be essential goods. The assessee has deposited a sum of Rs. 1,82,37,000/- during demonetization period in specified bank notes to various bank accounts. The assessee claims that source for cash deposit is out of ITA No.681/Bang/2023 Page 10 of 16 realization of cash sales made before demonetization period. The assessee has filed necessary details including copies of sales bills made in cash before demonetization period and also list of parties from whom cash collected after demonetization period and deposited into bank account. The assessee had also filed necessary details of information furnished to department immediately after demonetization period towards cash collected from third party in response data. The Assessing Officer is not disputing all these claims of the assessee including evidence filed in support of justification for source for cash deposit. But, the Assessing Officer has made additions towards cash deposit in specified bank notes after demonetization period only for the reason that the assessee is not eligible to transact or receive any specified bank notes after demonetization as per notification/GO issued by RBI and Government of India. The Assessing Officer, had discussed the issue with reference to GO issued by RBI and Government of India and concluded that since the assessee has accepted demonetized currency in violation of circular/notification issued by the Government of India, the source explained by the assessee cannot be accepted. In other words, the Assessing Officer never disputed fact that the assessee has made sales in cash before demonetization period and also realized cash from debtors against cash sales made before demonetization period. Therefore, to decide the issue whether the assessee can accept specified bank notes even after it was banned for legal tender after 09th November, 2016 and further, the same can be added u/s. 69 of the Act as unexplained investment and also can be taxed u/s. 115BBE of the Act, it is necessary to examine the case in light of business model of the assessee, and evidence filed during the course of assessment proceedings. 9. The provisions of section 69 of the Act, deals with unexplained investment, where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year, the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of accounts, if any, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investments or the explanation offered by the assessee is not in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, then the value of the investments may be deemed to be the income of the assessee of such financial year. In order to invoke provisions of section 69 of the Act, two conditions must be satisfied. First and foremost condition is there should be an investment and second condition is the assessee could not explain source for said investment. In this case, if you go ITA No.681/Bang/2023 Page 11 of 16 through evidence filed by the assessee including comparative details of amount collected out of sales for financial year 2015-16 & 2016-17 and details of cash deposit into bank for above financial years, we find that there is no abnormal deviations from its normal course of business. Further, on verification of analysis of cash sales and cash deposits to bank account there is no deviation of cash sales and cash deposits when compared to earlier financial year and demonetization period. Further, the assessee is dealing in essential commodities like medicines, surgical and diagnostics equipment through medical shops, hospital, doctors etc. The agents of the assessee come and collect cash from parties and directly deposit to bank account of the assessee. It is also not in dispute, in this line of business the majority of sales is in cash, because doctors, hospitals and medical shops mainly deals with cash. Therefore, from the business model of the assessee and trade practice there is no doubt of what so ever with regard to the explanation offered by the assessee that it has collected cash from debtors towards sales made in cash before demonetization period. Further, the appellant has also regularly availing GST/VAT returns and there is also being no change or deviation in the VAT returns field for the earlier months i.e., before the announcement of demonetization. The assessee had also declared sales made in cash in their books of accounts and filed necessary return of income and paid taxes on said income. The appellant has also made cash deposits regularly before and during that period including thenotes which are not banned and therefore, it is not a case of amount of deposit in specified bank notes has came out of undisclosed source or under any circumstances only to change the colour of the money. From the details filed by the assessee, it is evident that during the month of November and December, the assessee has made almost more than 5 crores cash deposit which includes various demonetized currency and regular notes. Further, the Assessing Officer has accepted fact that out of total cash deposits, only a sum of Rs. 1,82,37,000/- is in specified bank notes. From the above, it is very clear that there is no significant change in the pattern of cash sales, cash collection and cash deposit during demonetization period, when compared to earlier period in the same financial year and also during immediate preceding financial year. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the assessee has satisfactorily explained source for cash deposit made during demonetization period in specified bank notes and thus, the Assessing Officer is completely erred in making additions u/s. 69 of the Act. ITA No.681/Bang/2023 Page 12 of 16 10. Coming back to the observations of the Assessing Officer with regard to GO/notification issued by the RBI andGovernment of India, to deal with specified bank notes. The Assessing Officer is mainly on the issue of notification issued by the RBI to deal with the specified bank notes and argued that the assessee is not one of the eligible person to accept or to deal with specified bank notes and thus, even if assessee furnish necessary evidence, the assessee cannot accept specified bank notes after demonetization and the explanation offered by the assessee cannot be accepted. No doubt specified bank notes of Rs. 500 & Rs. 1000 has been withdrawn from circulation from 09th November, 2016 onwards. The Government of India and RBI has issued various notifications and SOP to deal with specified bank notes. Further, the RBI allowed certain category of persons to accept and to deal with specified bank notes up to 31st December, 2016. Further, the specified bank notes (cessation of liability) Act, 2017, also stated that from the appointed date no person can receive or accept and transact specified bank notes, and appointed date has been stated as 31st December, 2016. Therefore, there is no clarity on how to deal with demonetized currency from the date of demonetization and up to 31st December, 2016. Therefore, under those circumstances, some persons continued to accept and transact the specified banknotes and deposited into bank accounts. Therefore, merely for the reason that there is a violation of certain notifications/GO issued by the Government in transacting with specified bank notes, the genuine explanation offered by the assessee towards source for cash deposit cannot be rejected, unless the Assessing Officer makes out a case that the assessee has deposited unaccounted cash into bank account in specified bank notes. 11. We further, noted that the Central Board of Direct Taxes had issued a circular for the guidance of the Assessing Officer to verify cash deposits during demonetization period in various categories of explanation offered by the assessee and as per the circular of the CBDT, examination of business cases, very important points needs to be considered is analysis of bank accounts, analysis of cash receipts and analysis of stock registers. From the circular issued by the CBDT, it is very clear that, in a case where cash deposit found in business cases, the Assessing Officer needs to verify the explanation offered by the assessee with regard to realization of debtors where said debtors were outstanding in the previous year or credited during the year etc. Therefore, from the ITA No.681/Bang/2023 Page 13 of 16 circular issued by the CBDT, it is very clear that, while making additions towards cash deposits in demonetized currency, the Assessing Officer needs to analyze the business model of the assessee, its books of account and analysis of sales etc. In this case, if you go through analysis furnished by the assessee in respect of total sales, cash sales realisation from debtors and cash deposits during financial year 2015-16 & 2016-17, there is no significant change in cash deposits during demonetization period. Therefore, we are of the considered view that when there is no significant change in cash deposits during demonetization period, then merely for the reason that the assessee has accepted specified bank notes in violation of circulation/notification issued by Government of India and RBI, the source explained for cash deposits cannot be rejected. In our considered view, to bring any amount u/s. 69 of the Act, the nature and source of investment, needs to be examined. In case the assessee explains the nature and source of investment, then the question of making addition towards unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act does not arise. In this case, the source of deposits has not been disputed and has been created out of ordinary business sales which has been credited into books of accounts and profits has also beenduly included in the return of income filed in relevant assessment year. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, additions cannot be made u/s. 69 of the Act and taxed u/s. 115BBE of the Act towards cash deposits made to bank account. 12. At this stage, it is relevant to consider certain judicial precedents relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Agson Global Pvt Ltd vs ACIT [2022] 325 CTR 001. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that additions made on the sole ground of deviation in the ratio of cash sales and cash deposits during the demonetization period with that of earlier period, is improper and unlawful. 13. The assessee had also relied upon the decision of ITAT Indore Bench in the case of Dewas Soya Ltd, Ujjain vs ITO in ITA No. 336/Ind/2012, where it has been held as under: The Hon'ble Indore ITAT Bench in the case of DEWAS SOYA LTD, UJJAIN vs. Income Tax (Appeal No. 336/lnd /2012 has held that," the claim of the appellant that such addition resulted into double taxation of the same income in the same ITA No.681/Bang/2023 Page 14 of 16 year is also acceptable because on one hand cost of the sales has been taxed (after deducting gross profit from same price ultimately credited to profit 8: loss account) and on the other hand amounts received from above parties has also been added u/s 68 of the Act. This view has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwnath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194(SC) that "It is for the assessee to prove that even if the cash credit represents income, it is income from as source, which has already been taxed." The assessee has already offered the sales for taxation hence the onus has been discharged by it and the same income cannot be taxed again." 14. The ld. DR, has relied upon the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Benches, in the case of Vaishnavi Bullion Pvt Ltd vs ACIT Taxsutra 914/ITAT/2022 (Hyd). We, find that in the said case, the Tribunal noted that CFSL report, books and statement are contrary to assessee’s claim which are of post demonetization period. Under these facts, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that additions made towards cash deposits during demonetization period, assessee could not explain proper source. In this case, on perusal of details and records, we find that the assessee has filed all details to explain source for cash deposits and on the basis of details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer never disputed fact that source for cash deposit is not out of ordinary business receipts, which has been accounted in the books of accounts of the assessee and further, there is no deviation in cash deposits duringdemonetization period when compared to earlier period in same financial year and in earlier financial year. Therefore, we reject the case laws relied upon by the ld. DR. 15. In this view of the matter and by considering facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer erred in making additions towards cash deposits during demonetization period u/s. 69 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A), without appreciating relevant facts simply sustained additions made by the Assessing Officer. Thus, we set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete additions made towards cash deposits u/s. 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.” 13. The Visakapatnam Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Sri Tatiparti Satyanarayana in ITA No.76/Viz/2021, C.O. No.42/Viz/2014 (order dated 16.03.2022) held that dealing in SBNs prior to the appointed ITA No.681/Bang/2023 Page 15 of 16 day i.e., 31.12.2016 cannot be prohibited and the source of deposit needs to be examined. The relevant finding of the Visakapatnam Bench of the Tribunal reads as follows: “9. We have heard both the parties and perused all the documents on record. We find that there was sufficient cash balance with the assessee as detailed in page No.30 of the paper book. The Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017, defines "appointed day" vide Section 2(1)(a). As per Section 2(1)(a), "appointed day" means the 31st Day of December 2016. Section 5 of the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 also deals with prohibition on holding, transferring or receiving specified bank notes. Section 5 states that "On and from the appointed day, no person shall knowingly or voluntarily, hold, transfer or receive any specified bank note". We therefore, find that the specified bank notes can be measured in monetary terms since the guarantee of the Central Government and the liability of Reserve Bank of India does not cease to exist till 31.12.2016. In view of the above, the contention of the Ld.DR, treating the receipt of SBNs from cash sales as illegal and thereby invoking the provisions of section 69A is not valid in law. Therefore, we dismiss this ground of the Revenue.” 14. In view of the aforesaid reasoning and judicial pronouncements cited supra, we hold that both the AO and the CIT(A) have erred in holding that assessee, prior to the appointed day i.e., 31.12.2016, was prohibited from accepting the SBNs and addition of the same under section 69A of the Act is warranted. 15. However, in the instant case, I notice that the AO and the CIT(A) have not examined the source of the aforesaid cash deposits. For the limited purpose of examining the same, the issue is restored to the files of AO. The AO is instructed to examine the source of cash deposits. The assessee shall produce necessary evidence in support of her case. It is ordered accordingly. 16. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.” 8. In view of the above finding of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal, I hold that assessee cannot be denied the benefit of source of cash deposits of the ITA No.681/Bang/2023 Page 16 of 16 SBNs since he has received the same prior to the appointed day mentioned in the SBN (Cessation of Liabilities Act, 2017). However, as regards the issue of source of cash deposit, there is no verification done by the AO or the CIT(A). Hence, the issue is restored to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to examine the claim of the assessee whether cash deposits are out of receipts from trade activities. If it is found so, the source of cash deposit ought to be accepted as explained. It is ordered accordingly. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (GEORGE GEORGE K) Accountant MemberVice President Bangalore. Dated: 31.10.2023. /NS/* Copy to: 1.Appellants2.Respondent 3.DRP4.CIT 5.CIT(A)6.DR,ITAT, Bangalore. 7. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.