Tribunal Remands Cash Deposit Issue for Reassessment, Stresses Following Procedure and Considering Evidence in Demonetization Case.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of cash deposits back to the AO for reevaluation, emphasizing adherence to procedural guidelines and consideration of relevant evidence in assessing unexplained cash deposits during demonetization. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, requiring the AO to reassess the case with due regard to CBDT instructions.

---

---

Issues involved:
The appeal challenges the order of NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18, raising grounds related to natural justice, additions made without proper consideration, failure to call for necessary documents, lack of discussion on submissions, reliance on precedent judgments, and the treatment of cash deposits as unexplained money under relevant sections of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Grounds Raised by the Assessee:
1. The order of the ld. CIT(A) is opposed to the law, facts, and circumstances of the case.
2. The order is passed hastily, violating the principle of natural justice.
3. The ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding additions without considering the appellant's submissions.
4. The ld. CIT(A) should have passed a speaking order rejecting appellant's submissions.
5. The matter is covered by a judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Bengaluru ITAT.
6. The cash deposits were made from sales receipts and closing cash balance.
7. The appellant has already admitted the sales as revenue receipts.
8. The addition made was without considering the income included in the turnover.
9. The appellant has no other source of income apart from business income.
10. The appellant seeks leave to amend the grounds of appeal.
11. The appellant prays for the appeal to be allowed for a refund.

Facts and Decision on Cash Deposits Issue:
The assessee deposited a sum during demonetization using demonetized currency notes, which the AO treated as unexplained money. The appellant provided detailed statements of cash transactions, which were overlooked by the lower authorities. The Tribunal referred to a similar case and remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration in light of procedural instructions regarding cash deposits and sales analysis provided by the CBDT. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal remitted the issue of cash deposits back to the AO for reevaluation based on procedural guidelines, emphasizing the need to consider relevant evidence and instructions for assessing cases involving unexplained cash deposits during demonetization. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

---