NAGENDRA SINGH,KASGANJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(3), KASGANJ

The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. JCIT(A)”, for short] dated 27.02.2025 for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

Brief facts of the case are, during assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs.15,00,000/- into his bank account maintained with Gramin Bank of Aryavart, Goraha, Kasganj and another Rs.2,50,000/- to another account maintained with UBI, Railway Road, Kasganj during the demonetization period. Since the assessee has not filed any return of income, notice u/s 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued to the assessee to file the return of income for the AY 2017-18 on or before 31.03.2018. The assessee has not filed any return of income. A show- cause notice was issued to the assessee why the best judgment assessment should not be completed u/s 144 of the Act as per the material available on record. In response, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that an amount of Rs.17,28,000/- was received by the assessee on account of sale of agricultural land situated at Goraha, Kasganj. The cash of Rs.15,00,000/- was deposited out of the earlier cash withdrawal by the assessee from the account. After evaluating the sale deed submitted by the assessee and acknowledged to the extent of Rs.15,00,000/- was accepted, however for the additional deposit of unexplained cash to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- was treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, Delhi and filed detailed submissions, however not complied to various notices issued by the ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. 4. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that assessee has in fact submitted various details and also responded to various notices issued by the ld. CIT (A) and he objected to the addition sustained by the ld. CIT (A) u/s 69A of the Act. Further he submitted that the Assessing Officer has invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act which is sustained by the ld. CIT (A). With regard to section 115BBE, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of SMILE Microfinance Ltd. vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No.2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020 dated 19.11.2024, he further submitted that various documents submitted by the assessee during assessment proceedings were disregarded by the ld. CIT (A). 5. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the findings of the lower authorities.

Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. I observe that during demonetization period, the assessee has deposited Rs.17,50,000/- and established the deposit to the extent of Rs.15,00,000/- out of cash withdrawal from his own account which has also been accepted by the Assessing Officer. However, he sustained the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- deposited in his another bank account. I observe that as per CBDT Instruction No.03 of 2017 dated 21.02.2017, in the case of an Individual, no further verification is required to be made if total cash deposit is up to Rs.2,50,000/-. Since the assessee redeposited the savings available with him of Rs.2,50,000/-, it would be his own savings. Further, I observed that the assessee has already submitted the details of sale of agricultural land to the extent of Rs.17.28 lakhs. Assessing Officer has already accepted to the extent of Rs.15 lakhs. There is source already available for the difference of Rs.2.28 lakhs. Even on this count also, addition can be deleted. As per the aforesaid CBDT Instruction, CBDT has already allowed the cash deposit to the extent of Rs.2,50,000/- out of personal savings. Therefore, Rs.2,50,000/- deposited by the assessee during demonetization period should be considered as personal saving. Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is deleted.