Appeal Succeeds: Tribunal Deletes Rs. 41,31,910/- Addition Under Section 69A Due to Insufficient AO Justification on Cash Deposits

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the addition of Rs. 41,31,910/- under section 69A, as the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to provide sufficient reasons to reject the assessee's evidence and explanation regarding cash deposits during the demonetization period. Despite procedural lapses, such as non-service of notices under section 142(1) and limited time for adjournment, the Tribunal focused on the substantive merits of the case, concluding that the cash deposits were genuine. The order was pronounced on 12/10/2023.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Adequate opportunity of being heard before finalizing assessment under section 144.
2. Addition under section 69A for cash deposits during the demonetization period.
3. Non-service of notices under section 142(1).
4. Time provided for adjournment request.

Summary:

Issue 1: Adequate Opportunity of Being Heard
The assessee argued that the CIT(A), NFAC, confirmed the assessment under section 144 without providing adequate opportunity for hearing. The assessment was finalized on 27.11.2019, although the limitation period expired on 31.12.2019. The Tribunal noted that despite the assessee submitting written submissions and documents during the assessment proceedings, the assessment was completed under section 144.

Issue 2: Addition under Section 69A
The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's addition of Rs. 41,31,910/- under section 69A, treating it as unexplained money deposited during the demonetization period. The assessee, a co-operative society for Tribal women, maintained that the cash deposits were from member savings, duly recorded in audited books of accounts. The Tribunal found that the AO accepted cash deposits of Rs. 29,99,200/- and other credits of Rs. 17,34,460/- as genuine but disputed the demonetization period deposits. The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide cogent evidence to dispute the deposits and deleted the addition.

Issue 3: Non-service of Notices under Section 142(1)
The assessee contended that notices under section 142(1) were not properly served. The Tribunal noted the procedural lapses but focused on the substantive issue of unexplained cash deposits.

Issue 4: Time Provided for Adjournment Request
The assessee argued that only six days were given in response to an adjournment petition seeking a month. The Tribunal did not specifically address this procedural issue, focusing instead on the substantive merits of the case.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the addition of Rs. 41,31,910/- under section 69A, and emphasized that the AO did not provide sufficient reasons to reject the assessee's evidence and explanation regarding the cash deposits. The order was pronounced on 12/10/2023.

---