Tribunal remands matter for verification, appellant not in violation of Specified Bank Notes Act.

The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the ld. AO for proper verification and adjudication, finding that the appellant did not violate the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liability) Act, 2017. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, ensuring the appellant's right to be heard and emphasizing the importance of a thorough verification process. The decision provided a fair resolution to the issues raised in the appeal, with the matter being concluded on 08.12.2022.

---

---

Issues:
1. Addition of unexplained income.
2. Treatment of agriculture produce sale proceeds post-demonetization.
3. Verification of cash deposits during demonetization.
4. Adequacy of assessment process.
5. Timeliness of assessment order.
6. Compliance with Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liability) Act, 2017.
7. Admissibility of evidence in defense.

Analysis:
1. The appeal concerned the addition of Rs. 3,84,706 as unexplained income by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and the ld. AO. The appellant contested this addition, arguing that if the agriculture produce sold before demonetization and part of the sale proceeds received after demonetization constituted unexplained income, it should also be considered a bad debt. The appellant emphasized the need for correct assessment and challenged the timeliness of the assessment order.

2. The brief facts revealed that the assessee deposited cash during the demonetization period, attributing the amount to Sundry Creditors M/s AD Traders. The AO, unable to verify the party and the cash being in Specified Bank Notes during demonetization, treated it as unexplained income. The appellant presented evidence, including a confirmation from AD Traders and bank account details, to support the deposited amount's legitimacy. The appellant also cited relevant legal provisions and relied on a similar ITAT order.

3. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel submitted a paper book with relevant documents. The appellant argued that the deposited amount was received before the appointed day under the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liability) Act, 2017. The Senior DR supported the ld. CIT(A)'s order, emphasizing the lack of clarifications and supporting evidence from the appellant.

4. After considering the submissions and available documents, the Tribunal noted the absence of confirmation from the sundry debtor, M/s AD Traders, and the failure to provide conclusive evidence before the revenue authorities. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not violate the Act by receiving Specified Bank Notes before the appointed day. Due to insufficient evidence submitted by the appellant, the matter was remanded back to the ld. AO for proper verification and adjudication, ensuring the appellant's right to be heard.

5. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a thorough verification process and proper opportunity for the appellant to present evidence. The decision was pronounced in open court on 08.12.2022, providing a fair resolution to the issues raised in the appeal.

---