Tribunal orders Assessing Officer to delete demonetization cash deposit addition, appellant's appeal allowed

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made on cash deposits during demonetization as the appellant provided sufficient evidence to explain the sources of income. The appeal of the appellant was allowed.

---

---

Issues involved:
The only effective issue in this appeal is whether the Commissioner of Income Tax was justified in partially confirming the addition made on account of cash deposits during the demonetization period.

Details of Judgment:

Cash Deposits during Demonetization Period:
The appellant, an agriculturist, deposited Rs. 13,17,500 in cash in a bank account during demonetization. The Assessing Officer treated this deposit as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The Commissioner partially confirmed the addition but restricted it to Rs. 7,67,000 after considering various sources provided by the appellant.

Sale of Car:
The appellant sold a car for Rs. 6,50,000 five months before demonetization, providing a cash source to explain the deposit.

Sale of Poplar Trees:
The appellant claimed to have sold 727 Poplar trees for Rs. 6 lakhs. Despite not being able to produce the buyer, the appellant provided evidence such as a receipt, affidavit, and correspondence with the Tahsildar, proving the sale. The cash source from this sale was accepted.

Sale proceeds of Crop:
The appellant received Rs. 3.5 lakhs from selling agricultural crops in October 2016, which, along with other sources, explained the cash deposits.

Old Personal Savings:
The appellant claimed old personal savings of Rs. 1,17,500, which was partially accepted by the Commissioner. When combined with other receipts, this explained the entire cash deposits during demonetization.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made on cash deposits during demonetization, as the appellant provided sufficient evidence to explain the sources of income. The appeal of the appellant was allowed.

Separate Judgement:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.

---