VARADARAJ SHARAVANA,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4) , MYSORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the authorities below did not properly verify the cash deposits made during demonetization. The assessee is directed to provide evidence of income and source of deposits, and the AO is to verify these in light of relevant CBDT circulars.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerns an addition made by the AO under Section 69A for demonetized cash deposited in a bank account. The assessee failed to appear before the AO and CIT(A), citing illiteracy and lack of understanding of online procedures.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made under Section 69A for demonetized cash deposits is valid without proper verification, and if the assessee's illiteracy and lack of technical knowledge constitute a reasonable cause for non-appearance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC-‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of order dated 22.02.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi for A.Y. 2017-18.
At the outset, it is submitted that, only issue raised by assessee in the present appeal is regarding addition made by the Ld.AO u/s. 69A of the act on the demonetized cash deposited in the bank account. It is noted that, before the Ld.AO, the assessee could not appear and ex-parte order was passed. In an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), assessee again could not appear though the notices were issued to the assessee.
On a query being raised by this Tribunal regarding non- appearance before Ld.CIT(A), an affidavit dated 08.06.2024 was relied by the Ld.AR, stating that the assessee is a mason by profession and do not have sufficient knowledge to access the email id as per form 35. It was submitted that the id was created by a tax practitioner, for purpose of registering the assessee’s profile with the income tax department. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that, being illiterate, the fate followed by the shortcoming, the assessee was not able to appear before the authorities below. He thus prayed for the appeal to be remanded for deciding the issue on merits. The Ld.DR relied on the orders passed by authorities below. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us.
Admittedly, necessary verification in respect of the cash deposits made during the demonetisation period has not been verified by the authorities below. Undoubtedly, the CBDT Circular to understand the cash deposited during the Page 3 of demonetisation period has to be considered before making addition in the hands of the assessee under sec. 69A of the Act.
The assessee is directed to furnish all relevant evidences establishing the income earned during the relevant year, and the source of cash deposited into the bank accounts during the demonetisation period. The Ld.AO is directed to verify all the details having regards to the evidences furnished by the assessee in the light of the following CBDT Circular/ instructions. a) The 1st instruction was issued on 21/02/2017 by instruction number 03/2017. b) The 2nd instruction was issued on 03/03/2017 instruction number 4/2017. c) The 3rd instruction was in the form of a circular dated 15/11/2017 in F.No. 225/363/2017-ITA.II and the last one dated 09/08/2019 in F.no.225/145/2019-ITA.II.
The assessee is directed to establish all relevant details to substantiate its claim in line with the above applicable instructions, to the facts in present case. We are aware of the fact that not every deposit during the demonetisation period would fall under category of unaccounted cash. However the burden is on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the deposit in order to fall outside the scope of unaccounted cash.
The Ld.AO shall verify all the details / evidences filed by the assessee based on the above direction and to consider the claim in accordance with law.
Page 4 of Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee may be granted physical hearing in order to justify its claim. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th June, 2024.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026