Appeal Succeeds: Tribunal Overturns Unexplained Cash Addition, Validates Public Trust's Demonitization Deposit Records.

The ITAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the addition of cash deposits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The Tribunal found that the appellant, a public trust, had adequately explained the cash deposits during the demonetization period with sufficient evidence, including bank statements and audit records, demonstrating proper recording of transactions. The Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in their assessment, and the appellant's explanations were legitimate, thus nullifying the addition.

---

---

Issues:
- Appeal against order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre for assessment year 2017-18.
- Addition of cash deposited in bank as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act.
- Invocation of section 115BBE of the Act for transactions occurred prior to its insertion.
- Liberty to add, amend, alter, or modify grounds of appeal before final appeal.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order by National Faceless Appeal Centre for the assessment year 2017-18. The grounds of appeal included contentions that the order passed by the CIT(A) was against law, equity, and justice, and the addition of cash deposited in the bank as unexplained money was erroneous under section 69A of the Act. The appellant also sought liberty to modify grounds of appeal before the final appeal.

2. The assessee, a public trust engaged in educational activities, filed its return showing income from various sources. The Assessing Officer made an addition of cash deposited in the bank under section 69A as unexplained money. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, leading to the appeal.

3. The appellant argued that the cash deposited during the demonetization period was properly recorded in the books of accounts and was not unexplained money. The Assessing Officer's refusal to accept the explanation was contested, citing that the transactions were duly recorded in audit books. The appellant relied on legal precedent to support their case.

4. The Revenue contended that the appellant failed to fully disclose cash deposits and did not provide necessary details regarding various funds and income sources. The invocation of section 69A was justified based on lack of disclosure and evidence.

5. Upon review, it was found that the delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the books of accounts were never rejected by the Assessing Officer. The evidence presented by the assessee demonstrated proper recording of transactions and cash deposits during the demonetization period. The bank statements and other evidence supported the explanation provided by the assessee.

6. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) erred in making the addition of cash deposits as unexplained money under section 69A. The appellant had adequately explained the cash deposits, and the evidence presented was sufficient to support their case. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the addition was set aside.

7. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing that the cash deposits were not unexplained money, as the appellant had provided detailed explanations and evidence to support the legitimacy of the transactions.

---