Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
O R D E R
Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 17.10.2024, passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1069736644(1) for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. Shri Shyamadas Bandyopadhyay, FCA appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. 3. At the time of hearing, ld. AR has filed his written submissions which are as under :- Your appellant is a Primary agricultural credit society (PACS), registered under the west Bengal cooperative societies act 2006 as amended up to date. The primary object of your appellant is providing of credit facilities to its member s. Your appellant accepts deposits from its members and provides various loans to its members. The whole of the profits and gains attributable for carrying on the business banking / providing credit facilities to its members are deductable under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act 1961. Your appellant society purchases fertilizers, seeds, in order to supply to the members of the society. The whole of the profits and gains of such activities entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Income Tax Act 1961. our appellant society entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the whole of the interest /Dividend received from other Cooperative Societies. Your appellant society entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for the activities other than as mentioned in section 80P(2)(a) and 80P(2)(b) of Income Tax Act 1961. Your appellant society filed income tax return for the Assessment year 2017-18 on20/10/2017 showing total income Nil.
The Computation of Total Income as per income tax return submitted are as follows : 3.1. Computation of Income from Business or Profession are as follows : Particulars Details (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) Net profit as per Profit and Loss 23,18,204.00 Account Add: Depreciation debited in Profit 79,133.00 and Loss Account 23,97,337.00 Less: Depreciation allowable 71,141.00 23,26,196.00 Add:Disallowable Expenditure under section 36 of the Income Tax Act 1961 P.F 30,546.00 Provision for Bad & Doubtful debts 38,077.00 Provision for Leave Salary 5,00,000.00 Donation 20,000.00 Gift 18,600,.00 6,07,223.00 Add: Disallowable Expenditure under Section 37 Software purchase being capital 25,000.00 expenditure debited in profit and loss account 29,58,419.00 Income from Business/Profession 29,58,419.00 3.2 Computation of Total Income Income from House property NIL Income from Business or profession 29,58,419.00 Income from capital gains NIL Income from other sources NIL Less: Deduction under Section 80P of the 29,58,419.00 Income Tax Act, 1961 Total income NIL 4. The return was selected for scrutiny through computer assisted scrutiny system (CASS) The Learned come Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) Burdwan added the disallowable expenditures and provisions which has already been added by your appellant, in order to find out the Profits and gains of business or profession. The double addition were made by Learned Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) Burdwan which is completely Bad in Law. The disallowable provisions, which has already been added with the net profit has again added by learned Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) Burdwan and shown as Issue No-01 Sl.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1 Provision for NPA 20,043.00 2 Provision for Sundry Debtors 10,930.00 3 Provision for Overdue Interest on loan 6451.00 4 Provision for Others 653.00 5 Provision for Leave Salary 5,00,000.00 Total 5,38,077.00 The disallowable expenditure, which has already been added with the net profit has again added by learned Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) Burdwan and shown as Issue no Assessment order which is as follows: 02 in his Sl.No. Particulars(Rs.) Amount (Rs.) 1 P.F. Contribution to Staff 30,546.00 2 Donation and Subscription 20,000.00 3 Gift 18,600.00 4 Total 69,146.00 The capital expenditure on software purchase of Rs. 25000.00 which has already been added with the net profit has again added by learned income tax officer, ward-1(3) Burdwan and shown as issue no-03 in his assessment order. Therefore the total disallowable expenditure as per Assessment order shown as 6,32,223/-which has already been considered by your appellant in the return filed.
The details are as follows: Sl.No. Particulars(Rs.) Amount (Rs.) 1 Issue No.01 5,38,077.00 2 Issue No.02 69,146.00 3 Issue No.03 25,000.00 Total 6,32,223.00 5. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi confirmed the addition made by Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Burdwan invoking section 69A of the Income Tax Act 1961 for the cash deposited into bank during demonetization period (09/11/2016 13 30/12/2016) of Rs. 49,23,000/- in spite of the details of the source and nature of cash deposit were produced during appellate proceedings by providing copy of cash book, copy of sub-cash book, copy of day book, copy of members KYC, copy of audit report. The Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Burdwan invoked section 69A of the Income Tax Act 1961 for the cash deposited into bank during demonetization period (09/11/2016 to 30/12/2016) of Rs. 49,23,000/- received from members for savings deposit, recurring deposit and sale of fertilizers, the only reason for such invocation is due to the deposit of specified bank notes. The Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Burdwan in para-6 in page no. 07 in his Assessment order stated as follows "It is seen from the bank account statement that an amount of Rs. 49,23,000/- was deposited in cash in old currency during the demonetization period, i.e. 09/11/2016 to 30/12/2016. It is intimated that after 08/11/2019, the old currency notes of denomination of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1000/- became illegal tender, hence in your case, deposition of those illegal tenders to any bank other than cooperative bank will be treated as unexplained money." The details of nature and sources of cash deposit explained, in spite of that Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, ignore the submissions before him and confirmed the addition. In para-5.7 in appellate order the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi confirmed the addition under section 69A and held as follows: “5.7. Even after having availed number of opportunities, the assessee without any reasonable cause failed to explain the nature & source of impugned cash deposits during assessment proceedings as well as during the appellate proceedings. Therefore there is not any excuse to take a divergent view from the findings of the AO. Hence it is held that the AO correctly made addition of Rs. 49,23,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits.
In view of the facts discussed above, the nature & source of deposits made by the appellant remained unexplained. Thus the appellant had failed to discharge its onus u/s 69A of the Act. Hence, the addition made by the AO of Rs. 49,23,000/- as unexplained cash deposits is confirmed. Accordingly, Ground No. 5 is dismissed."
According to sec 69A of the Income Tax Act 1961, - "Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery, or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or other article is not recorded in the books of account, if any maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of investments or the explanation offered by him is not in the opinion of the assessing officer satisfactory, the value of the investments may be deemed to be the income of the assessee of such financial year." From the plain reading of the sec 69A, there are two points to be remembered: i. Money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article, is not recorded in the books of accounts, and ii. No explanation is given, or if explanation is given, the assessing officer is not satisfied with the given explanation.
Therefore, for invoking sec 69A of the Income tax act, 1961, both the points above are to be taken into accounts. Firstly, the subject matter is not recorded in the books of accounts and secondly the explanation not given or explanation given is unsatisfactory before the assessing officer. Therefore, the recording of the transactions in books of accounts is important to invoke sec 69A. In the cases where the transactions are recorded sec 69A cannot be invoked.
In the instant case all the transaction are recorded in the books of accounts, i.e., in cash book, ledger, members ledger, etc. In the case of Kanpur steel; company ltd. vs CIT [1957 32 ITR 56 (All HC)], it stated that, "income from undisclosed sources- burden of proof that the high denomination notes enchased on heir demonetisation and explaining the I.T authorities that it formed part of cash balance of Rs. 34000 tribunal after examination of the accounts holding that only seven notes could form part of that cash balance in the state of transactions performed by the assessee and making an addition of Rs. 25000 not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the case of Shri Shri Nilkanta narayan singh vs. CIT [1951 20 ITR 8 (Patna HC)], it is decided that, no onus upon assesee to proof from whom each note received. Therefore, the ld. Income tax officer, ward 1(3), Burdwan, without proving the matter invoked Sec 9A of the income tax act, 1961. He must prove that the money is unaccounted money and after that he can only invoke sec 69A of the income tax act, 1961. In the instant case in absence of proof, the additions made under sec 69A of the income tax act, 1961, is bad in law. The assessment order needs to be quashed. Therefore The Id. Income tax officer, erred in law and in the circumstances of the case, in Invoking sec 69A of the income tax act, 1961, where the transactions are clearly mentioned in the books of accounts. In the instant case addition made without rejection of books. Reliance may be placed in the case of Lakshmi Rice Mills vs. CIT [1974 97ITR 258(Patna HC)]. In the case of Lal Chand Bhagat Ambika Ram Vs. CIT [1959 37ITR 288(SC)]- Reliance may be place that En-cashed high denomination notes form part of cash balances and books of accounts considered genuine. The first demonetization in British India was happened in the year 1946 in which the Governor General of India promulgated the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetization) ordinance 1946. It declared that High Denomination Bank Notes of Rs. 500/- Rs.1000/- and Rs. 10,000/-issued by the RBI would ceased to be legal tended on expiry of 12th January 1946. The next denomination happened under in the year 1978 under the Government of India where the Jantaparty was in rule. The ordinance was subsequently repealed and replaced by the High Denomination Bank Notés (Demonetization) Act 1978 on March 30 1978. In terms of Gazette notification no. 2652 dated 08th November 2016 by invoking section 26(2) of the Reserve Bank of India 1934 it was declared by the Government of India that the Denomination of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1000/- ceased to be legal tender. There is no ordinance like the previous cases in this case only the power of notification as mentioned in section-26(2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act was implemented by the Government of India. Section-26 of the Reserve Bank of India deals with the Legal tender character of notes. Section- 26(2) states that on recommendation of the Central Board the Central Government may, by notification in the gazette of India, declare that, w.e.f. such date as may be specified in the notification any series of bank notes of any denomination shall ceased to be legal tender save at such office or agency of the bank and to such extend as may be specified in the notification. According to section-26(1) of the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934 subject to the provision of sub-section-2 of that Act every bank note shall be legal tender at any place in India in payment or on account for the amount expressed there in and shall be guaranteed by the Central Government. Therefore from the plane reading of section-26 it is stated that every bank note shall be legal tender at any place in India in payment or on account for the amount express therein and shall be guaranteed by the Central Government unless it is withdrawn as legal tender by the Government, which indicates that if any bank note is withdrawn by the Centra. Government from the character of legal tender the guarantee of the Central Government must be withdrawn there from, If the guarantee is not withdrawn the Legal character of the tender cannot be changed in toto. The notification dated 08% November 2016 Government of India withdrawn Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- as Legal tender but it has not withdrawn the guarantee provided in the tender. So a mixture status arises in these notes on the one hand Legal tender withdrawn but the guarantee continues with the tender which is withdrawn by the Central Government. The previous denomination process in1946 and in the year 1978 both were under the ordinance as a result of which the characteristic of legal tender and the guarantee by the Central Government of India both were withdrawn and circulation was stopped. The notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- which was withdrawn by the notification no. 2652 dated 08th November 2016 was obviously a paper but with a guarantee of the Central Government. These notes were declared as specified bank notes, now the situation arises as follows. Rs. 500/- and Rs.1000/- ceased to be Legal tender but this Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- contains the guarantee of Central Government, therefore the specified bank notes contains the guarantee of Central Government. There was no hindrance for circulation of these notes. The circulation was not stopped by the Government of India on the other hand Government of India notifies about the circulations where it can be used. In terms of clause -(2) of the notification no.2652 dated 08t November 2016, the specified bank notes were permitted to be exchanged at any issue office of the Reserve Bank or any branch of a banking company’s Cooperative Bank, Corresponding new bank, Subsidiary bank, Regional Rural Bank and the State Bank of India as defined under the Banking Regulation Act 1949 (10 of 1949) (here in after refer to as “Banking Company” or “Bank”) subject to certain conditions and limits that were specified in the said notification. New series of bank notes were there after issued and bank branches were designated as the primary agencies through which the members of public and other entities could exchange the specified bank notes for bank notes in other valid denominations or depositing the specified bank notes for crediting to their accounts up to and including 30/12/2016. The circulation of the specified bank notes were in operations at Government Hospitals, Pharmacies in this Hospitals, Railway Ticked Counters, Ticket Counters of Governments which indicates that the circulation of the notes was not prohibited in the notification. There was no penalty for acceptance of specified bank notes during demonetization period. Legal tender is the money that is recognized by the Law of the land, as valid for payment of debt. It must be accepted for discharge of debt. Every bank note shall be legal tender at any place in India in payment for the amount express therein. The cancellation of legal tender status is important because paper money derives all its value from the Government Recognition of it. Fundamental rights to movement [Article -19(1)(d)] , trade or business [Article-19(1)(g)], lively hood and in certain cases live [Article-21], The right to equality[Article-14] and the Constitutional right to property (Article- 300A) of the Constitutions were directly or indirectly affected due to Demonetization notification. It is clear that section-26(2) of the RBI Act empowers the Government to demonetized, ie to declare any series of notes as illegal tender. Therefore that part of the notification which merely declares that “Rs. 500/-” and “Rs.1000/-” notes cease to be legal tender is permissible under section-26(2). In fact the Government twice before in 1946 and 1978 carried out Demonetization. In the Demonetization notification the Government of India issued gazette notification no. 2652 dated November 08/ 2016[S.0. 3407(E)] to demonetize specified ban: notes w.e.f. 09/11/2016. On the same day the Government issued one more notification no. 2653 dated November 08/2016[S.0.3408(E)] to notify certain exemptions for the convenience of the members of public in carrying out certain emergent and urgent transaction using the specified bank notes. Section- 26(2) of the Reserve Bank of India do not empower the Government to issue such notifications for circulation once the bank notes were declare illegal by the Government of India vide notification No.2652 dated November-08/2016. This notification affects the equality as mentioned in article 14 of the Constitution of India and the Government by issuing such notifications permitted for circulation of the illegal tender, therefore the circulation of bank notes were not stopped and no penalty was imposed for the circulation of notes in the area beyond the exempted areas as notified by Government of India vide notification No. 2653 dated November- 08/2016.Your appellant accepted the so called specified bank notes from the members because the circulation was not prohibited, Government guarantee was not withdrawn, liability of the Reserve Bank was also not withdrawn and there were so many members who had no bank account at all and also the members requested to help them in these crises days. Therefore for the benefit of the members and for the society itself and for development of the mutuality the bank notes were accepted from the members to deposit in the account of the society and to curtail the harassment of the Individual member in exchanging the notes. 6.2 The notification for demonetization which was issued on 08% November 2016 by Government of India for the Following Reasons. i) Fake Currer.cy have been hugely in circulation along with genuine currency. ii) Fake Currency being used for Terrorism and other activities Threatening security of the country. iii) Accumulation of unaccounted wealth. The huge volume of transaction in currency (Cash Transaction) was not the reason for the said exercise which is clear from the said notification. In the notification the word “ may be” used instead of “Shall be” which indicates that it was not rigid to follow the instruction given in the notification. In the notification it is stated that the specified bank notes held by a person may be exchanged at any issue office of the Reserve Bank or any branch of Public Sector Banks , Private Sector Banks, Foreign Banks, Regional Rural Banks, Urban Cooperative Banks and State Cooperative Banks for a period up to and including the 31st December 2016. The word “May Be” indicates that alternative use is permissible. Further the notification dose not explicitly prohibit holding, transferring or receiving any specified bank note up to 31st December 2016. Which can be known from plane reading of the specified bank notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act 2017 implemented pursuant to the Demonetization exercise. Section- 5 of the specified bank notes (Cessation of Liability) Act 2017 states that “On and from the appointed day no person shall, knowingly or voluntarily hold transfer or received any specified bank note. Section- 2(1)(A) in specified bank notes (Cessation of Liabilities)Act 2017 states that “appointed day" means the 31st day of December 2016. According to section-7 of the Specified Bank notes (Cessation of Liabilities)Act 2017 whoever contravenes the provisions of section-5 shall be punishable with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or five times the amount of the face value of the specifies bank notes involved in the contravention whichever is higher. Therefore this is the first time of imposition of penalty for acceptance of specified bank note from 31st December 2016 which clearly means that there was no fault of accepting specified bank notes during 09/11/2016 to 30/12/2016 and your appellant has not conducted any mistakes in accepting the specified ban:. notes during the period of Demonetization 09/11/2016 to 30/12/2016.
Further section-3 of the specified bank notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act 2017 states that “on and from the appointed day, not withstanding anything contained in the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934 or nay other Law for the time being enforce, the specified bank notes which have ceased to be Legal tender, in view of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance no. S03407E dated 08t November 2016 issued under sub-section 2 of section 26 of the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934, shall cease to be liabilities of the Reserve Bank under section- 34 and shall cease to have the guarantee of the Central Government under sub-section (1) of section- 26 of the said act. From the above it is clear that the use of specified bank notes was always allowed it was never the intension of Law to prohibit its use before 31st December 2016. The stand taken by the Learned Income Tax Officer ward-1(3) Burdwan following the department scheme of Operation Clean Money (OCM) that the specified bank notes loses its Legal Characteristics and it becomes a piece of paper which cannot be used as transactions in the books of accounts following money measurement concept of accountancy and thus the transactions which is entered in books of accounts can be ignored for the purpose of invoking section-69A of the Income Tax Act 1961 is not correct. The invocation of section-26(2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934 by Government of India by issuing notification and the subsequent ordinance, the specified bank notes(Cessation of Liabilities) ordinance 2016 promulgated on December- 30/2016 and subsequent implementation of the specified bank notes Cessation of Liabilities Act 2017 which over rides the notification issued on 08% November 201 6 and the specified bank notes which were exchangeable by the Reserve Bank of India cannot lose its Legal character. Therefore the view taken by the Assessing Officer ward- 1(3) Burdwan was bad in Law and your appellant was entitled to accept the specified bank notes during 09/11/2016 to 31/12/2016 and the entries in the books of accounts with these specified bank notes was correct in Law. The Learned Income Tax Officerward-1(3) Burdwan is erred in Law and in the Circumstance of the case by invokingsection-69A vi the Income Tax Act 1961and the addition of Rs. 49,23,000.00/- which was deposited in bank in specified bank notes with total income of your appellant and charging of tax on it. The following case laws maybe referred Treating Cash deposit from business income as unexplained results in double taxation - Nitin Kumar Bohra vs. Income Tax Officer, Bangalore , A.Y.-2017-18 , date of pronouncement 24/09/2024. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, “B” Bench, Bangalore. The provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act 1961cannot be applied in respect of cash deposited which have been duly recorded in books of accounts and have already been declared in the return of income filed by the assessee. ITO vs. Zee Bengal Pvt. Itd. ITAT Mumbai, ITA No. 815/Mumbai/2022 order pronounced on 18/07/2023, Assessment Year : 2017-18. Cash deposited in Bank during demonetization period (09/11/2016 to30/12/2016) not taxable under section 69A of the Income Tax Act 1961 if source of cash deposited in bank explained - Amikrupa Education Trust vs. The Income Tax Officer ward Exemption Vadodara ITA No. 581/Ahd/2023, Order Pronounce :d on 24/01/2024, ITAT Ahmedabad. Evidences Explaining nature and source of cash deposit filed, additions under section 69A unjustified. S. Tulsidas Nedunselian vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax , ITAT Chennai, ITAT 472/CHNNY/2022 Pronounced on 23/08/2023, A/Y - 2017-18. Cash deposit in Bank from undisputed source during the period of demonetisation (09/11/2016 to 30/12/2016) - ITAT delete the addition. ITA No. 1830/Del/2022, ITAT Delhi Date of Pronouncement 11/08/2023. Sheochand Yadav Haryana vs. ITO ward- 4(2) Gurgaon. (ITAT Delhi) A/Y- 2017-18. Source of Demonetisation notes collected by Cooperative society explained. ITAT quashes the addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961. Sri Bhegeeratha Pattina Sahakara Vs. ITO Davangere ITAT Bangalore. ITA No. 646/Bang/2021. Pronounced on 18/02/2022. This is similar case of the instant case. It is held that the contravention of the notification issued by RBI would not attract the provision of section 68 of the Act.
7. Cash deposited in Bank during demonetization period the source of cash deposit explained. No addition - Totgar’s Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, ITAT Bangalore, ITA No. 168/Bang/2023. Date of Pronouncement 12/06/2023.
Section 68 not applicable on deposits accepted by cooperative society from its members- Merchants credit cooperative society ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bangalore, /2023, A/Y- 2017-18, Date of Pronouncement 24/08/2023.
Addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for accepting specified bank notes during demonetization where sources are identified and SBN received prior to 31/12/2016 unjustified. Prathanik krushi Pattina Sahakari Sangha, Niyamitha vs. ITO , ITAT Bangalore, ITA 593/Bang/2021, Date of Pronouncement 01/06/2022 ( Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society).
10. Addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act 1961 for cash deposited during Demonetization untenable as transaction duly explained. Onindri Chakraborty vs. ITO ward-25(1) Kolkata, order pronounced on 22/06/2023. 11.Assessee firm violated RBI guidelines and accepted SBN notes during Demonetization, Honourable ITAT, Ahmadabad issued order in favour of Assessee Firm. The ITO ward-1(1)(3) Ahmadabad vs. M/s Ashapura Petroleum Marketing Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 511/AHD/2020, Assessment Year : 2017-18. Date of pronouncement 18/10/2023. 12.No addition if assessing officer accepted documents and books of accounts containing Cash Credit, ITAT Chandigarh, Arun Garg vs. ITO , 2022 Taxscan(ITAT) 1257.
8. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi and Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Burdwan ignore the provisions that section- 5 of the specified bank notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017. Specified that “ on and from the appointed day, no person shall knowingly or voluntarily held, transfer, or receive any specified note” The appointed day was 31.12.2016. therefore, your appellant could receive specified bank note before 31.12.2016. therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of the instant case invocation of section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 12961 for acceptance of specified bank notes is completely bad in law. It is earnestly prayed to delete the unlawful tax burden imposed by Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Burdwan which is unlawfully confirmed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), national Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi of demand of Rs.53,13,571/-.
It was the submission that the assessee has not been granted proper opportunities either by the Assessing Officer or by the ld. CIT(A). When it was brought to the attention to the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has mentioned that there is no response from the assessee as have been mentioned in para 5.7 of the order of the ld. CIT(A), the ld. AR placed before us the acknowledgement of e-filing details before the ld. CIT(A). The details are as under :-
In fact, a perusal of the acknowledgement No.225017411180524 shows that the assessee has filed a reply of the notice, the same is dated 20.05.2024. The due date of submission was for 20th May, 2024 and the notice was issued on 24.05.2024. The assessee having replied to the notice and the assessee having provided all the details before the ld. CIT(A), we fail to understand as to how the ld. CIT(A) came to the conclusion in para 5.7 of the order that the assessee has not provided any details. Thus, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for readjudication afresh after considering the submissions given by the assessee in accordance with the e-proceedings.