Cash deposits of demonetized notes cannot be treated as unexplained credit under Section 68 when identity, genuineness and creditworthiness proven

ITAT Pune held that cash deposits of specified bank notes during demonetization period cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 when assessee proves identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of members who deposited the notes. The tribunal rejected Revenue's contention that demonetized notes cannot be received in any capacity, emphasizing that Income-tax Act is self-contained code requiring only three limbs to be satisfied. Assessee's appeal was allowed as all requirements under section 68 were fulfilled through proper documentation of member transactions.

---

---

The core legal questions considered in this appeal revolve around the validity of an addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to unexplained cash credits arising from deposits of Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) during the demonetization period. Specifically, the issues include:

• Whether the addition of Rs. 1,20,45,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 was justified when the deposits were made in SBNs during demonetization.
• Whether acceptance of SBNs by the assessee society from its members during the demonetization period constituted an infringement of law or government policy, thereby rendering such deposits unexplained cash credits.
• Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) correctly treated SBNs as worthless pieces of paper after 8th November 2016 and disallowed transactions involving them.
• Whether the assessee had satisfactorily proved the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the members from whom the deposits originated.
• Whether the AO's failure to verify the members and consider submitted evidence justified the addition under section 68.
• Whether the provisions of the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017, and relevant judicial precedents support the deletion of the addition.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of Addition under Section 68 for Deposits in SBNs During Demonetization

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 68 of the Income Tax Act empowers the AO to treat any sum credited in the books of an assessee as income if the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of such credit. The Supreme Court and various High Courts have emphasized that the assessee must prove three essential conditions: identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness of the creditor. The burden then shifts to the revenue to disprove the explanation.

Relevant judicial precedents cited include:

• Bombay High Court in Gaurav Triyugi Singh emphasizing the three conditions under section 68.
• Bombay High Court in H.R. Mehta v. ACIT reiterating the necessity to prove identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness.
• Bombay High Court in Narendra G. Goradia (HUF) v. CIT holding that once the source of money is proved, no addition under section 68 can be made.
• ITAT Bangalore in Sri Bhageeratha Pattina Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha v. ITO and Prathamika Krushi Pattina v. ITO holding that deposits of demonetized notes collected from members in the ordinary course of business cannot be treated as unexplained money under section 68.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court closely examined the submissions and evidence provided by the assessee, including detailed member lists with PANs, ledger extracts, and audited books of account. The AO did not dispute the identity, genuineness, or creditworthiness of the members. The AO's primary contention was that acceptance of SBNs after 8th November 2016 was impermissible, and thus the deposits were unexplained cash credits.

The Court found this reasoning flawed because the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017, defines the "appointed day" as 31st December 2016, until which SBNs could be transferred or received. Therefore, SBNs did not cease to be legal tender immediately on 9th November 2016, but only after 31st December 2016. The AO's assumption that SBNs were worthless pieces of paper from 9th November was legally incorrect.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee produced comprehensive records evidencing the source of deposits, including member details, PANs, and ledger accounts. The assessee also demonstrated that it ceased accepting SBNs after receiving a clarification from the Assistant Sub-Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 11th November 2016 at 6:15 p.m. The AO did not conduct any verification of the members despite the assessee's willingness to produce them for inquiry.

Application of Law to Facts: Applying the legal principles, the Court held that since the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors (members) were established and the source of deposits was satisfactorily explained, no addition under section 68 could be sustained. The mere fact that the deposits were made in SBNs during demonetization does not convert them into unexplained credits.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The AO's argument that acceptance of SBNs after 8th November 2016 violated government policy was countered by statutory provisions and judicial precedents that allowed transfer and receipt of SBNs until 31st December 2016. The Court also noted the bona fide belief of the assessee and similar cooperative societies that acceptance of SBNs was permissible until official clarifications were issued.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 1,20,45,000/- under section 68 on account of deposits in SBNs during demonetization was not justified and was rightly deleted by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC).

2. Legality of Acceptance of SBNs by the Society During Demonetization

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017, sections 2(1)(a) and 5, provide that SBNs ceased to be legal tender only from 31st December 2016, allowing their transfer and receipt until that date. RBI notifications and clarifications also govern the treatment of demonetized notes.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court observed that the assessee's acceptance of SBNs on 9th, 10th, and 11th November 2016 was within the statutory framework. The AO's contention that SBNs were "worthless pieces of paper" from 9th November was legally untenable. The Court further noted that the assessee stopped accepting SBNs after the official clarification on 11th November 2016.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee submitted the clarification issued by the Assistant Sub-Registrar of Co-operative Societies and demonstrated compliance thereafter. The AO did not dispute the genuineness of the transactions or the records maintained.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the statutory provisions to the facts, concluding that the acceptance of SBNs during the specified period was lawful and did not constitute an infringement of law or government policy.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The AO's argument that the society's act was against government policy was rejected, as the statutory provisions and clarifications allowed such acceptance until the appointed day.

Conclusion: The acceptance of SBNs by the society during the demonetization period was lawful and did not justify any addition under the Income Tax Act.

3. Adequacy of Assessee's Explanation and AO's Failure to Verify Members

Legal Framework and Precedents: Under section 68, the assessee must provide a satisfactory explanation regarding the source and nature of cash credits. Courts have held that the AO must verify the explanation and conduct inquiries if necessary before making additions.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the assessee provided detailed information about the members, including PANs, addresses, and ledger extracts. The assessee expressed willingness to have members verified, but the AO did not undertake such verification.

Key Evidence and Findings: Multiple submissions by the assessee during assessment proceedings demonstrated the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the members. The books of account were audited by government auditors and accepted as true and fair.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court held that since the AO failed to verify the members or challenge the evidence on record, the addition under section 68 was unsustainable.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The AO's failure to investigate the source of deposits or question the members undermined the basis for the addition.

Conclusion: The AO's addition under section 68 was unjustified due to inadequate inquiry and failure to consider the assessee's evidence.

4. Effect of Judicial Decisions on Similar Facts

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court relied on several judicial decisions that have consistently held that deposits made from identified and creditworthy members, with genuine transactions, cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits under section 68. These include decisions from ITAT Bangalore and Bombay High Court addressing demonetization-related deposits.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court adopted the reasoning in these precedents, emphasizing that the burden lies on the AO to disprove the assessee's explanation once identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness are established.

Key Evidence and Findings: The facts of the present case align with those in the cited precedents, where additions under section 68 were deleted due to satisfactory explanation by the assessee.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied these precedents to uphold the deletion of the addition in the instant case.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's reliance on the argument of illegality of acceptance of SBNs was rejected in light of these precedents.

Conclusion: The Court's decision is consistent with established judicial principles, reinforcing the requirement for the Revenue to disprove the assessee's explanation under section 68.

Significant Holdings:

"The Income-tax Act is a self-contained code wherein an assessee has to prove the foregoing three limbs in order to get out of the rigor of sec. 68 of the Act."

"The AO did not doubt the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the members having deposited these specified bank notes."

"The Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017, defines 'appointed day' as 31st December 2016, and until that date, SBNs could be transferred or received."

"The mere fact that deposits were made in SBNs during demonetization does not convert them into unexplained cash credits."

"The AO's failure to verify the members or challenge the evidence on record renders the addition under section 68 unsustainable."

"The acceptance of SBNs by the society during the demonetization period was lawful and did not justify any addition under the Income Tax Act."

"In view of the above discussion and the juridical decisions, the addition of Rs. 1,20,45,000 is treated as not sustainable and is directed to be deleted."

The Court finally dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the deletion of the addition under section 68, thereby affirming that the deposits made in SBNs during demonetization by the assessee society from its members were explained satisfactorily and did not constitute unexplained cash credits under the Income Tax Act.

---