VASANTH & CO,TIRUPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), TIRUPUR

4 The assessee has also referred The Gazette of India, Extraordinary PART-II- Section 1 issued by Ministry of Law and Justice under The Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 dt.28th February, 2017 which states that the prohibition on holding, transferring or receiving specified bank notes shall be prohibited with effect from appointed day i.e 31.12.2016 as per para 5 of the Gazette. By quoting this Gazette, the assessee firm claimed that the acceptance of old currency i.e SBN during demonetisation was not prohibited till 30.12.2016’’.

Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A).

4 The ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us.

Financial Year 2014-15 43.44 crores. Financial Year 2015-16 48.17 crores Financial Year 2016-17 57.93 crores Assessee is constantly maintaining an average sale of 4 to 5 crores per month and there gross profit ratio is very low and there from they will not be able to extend much of credit to their customers as the same will eat out on our Return on Investments. Assessee’s customers range from departmental store to small petty shops and assessee is supposed to cater to all the shops within the area as their principles want the penetration of their product fully in the market. Amounts were received by Cheques/Bank transfers from big customers and in cash from smaller shops. When demonetization was announced there was a scarcity of Quid cash in non- demonetised currencies. Smaller traders had to accept payments from their customers in demonetised and non-demonetised currencies as well because of the fact that non acceptance will lead to fall in sales and put their customers into hardship. The traders in turn started making payments in demonetised currencies to assessee which forced them to accept in order to maintain a smooth working capital cycle. Assessee also enquired with their bankers regarding the same, who in turn advised that they will be accepting payments up to 30th December, 2016. Based on this, assessee was under the bonafide belief that acceptance of cash in demonetised form from identifiable customers is permitted and therefore assessee were accepting from such customers for a few days. As soon as assessee came to know that only specified persons can accept demonetised currency they stopped 5 receiving the same. The amount received during the initial few days were remitted to the bank account. This was the reason for acceptance of the demonetized currency to the tune of Rs.51,05,940/- from their customers, which were remitted in to account then and there. Going by the explanation of the assessee that the cash deposited in SBNs during demonetization period is out of sale proceeds and this issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Co-ordinate of the Tribunal in the case of Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai in for assessment year 2017- 2018 dated 07.10.2024 and wherein it was held as under:- ‘’8.4 We have gone through the notifications issued by the RBI and Government of India, to deal with specified bank notes. The only premise of the Revenue is mainly on the issue of notification issued by the RBI to deal with the specified bank notes and argument is 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 have been withdrawn from circulation from 09.11.2016 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 31.12.2016. 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 31.12.2016. Therefore, there is no clarity on how to deal with demonetized currency from the date of demonetization and up to 31.12.2016. Therefore, under those circumstances, some persons continued to accept and transact the specified bank notes 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 AO makes out a 6 case that the assessee has deposited unaccounted cash into bank account in specified bank notes.

8.5 We further noted that the Central Board of Direct Taxes had issued a circular for the guidance of the Revenue 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 AO 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 circular issued by the CBDT, it is very clear that, while making additions towards cash deposits in demonetized currency, the AO needs to analyze the business model of the assessee, its books of account and analysis of sales etc. In this case, if we go by analysis furnished by the assessee in respect of total sales, cash sales including the cash received in demonetized currency and cash deposits, there is negligible amount in demonetized currency. 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 circular/notification issued by Government of India and RBI, the source explained for cash deposits cannot be rejected. Simpliciter violation of certain notification issued by RBI or demonetization scheme announced by Government of India on 08.11.2016 will not entitle the Revenue to make addition u/s.69 or 69A of the Act. Because, the mandate of the provisions of Section 69 & 69A of the Act, i.e., unexplained investments and unexplained money etc., may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for the financial year relevant to assessment year concerned, in which the assessee is found to be the owner of such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article or unexplained expenditure, if, the such expenditure or such money etc., are not recorded in the books of accounts, if any, maintained by assessee for any source of income and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of such expenditure or acquisition of such money, etc., or the explanation offered by him, in the opinion of AO is not satisfactory. For violation of any RBI notification, etc., can have any civil or criminal liability and can be dealt with under any other provision of law by the concerned authority but for the purpose of bringing the amount under Income-tax, the provisions are very clear i.e., 69 & 69A of the Act. In our considered view, to bring any amount u/s. 69 or 69A of the Act, the nature and source of 7 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 been duly 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 of demonetized cash in SBNs’’. Since the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd (supra), we allow the ground raised by the assessee and delete the addition made by the lower authorities.

Order pronounced in the open court on 9th day of October, 2024 at Chennai.