ITAT allows cash deposits during demonetization for loan collection agent, finds transactions genuine and properly explained

The ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee regarding cash deposits made during demonetization period. The assessee, working as a loan collection agent for FRB, deposited cash collected from borrowers. The AO questioned the genuineness of deposits and claimed PAN/phone details were incorrect. The ITAT held that cash deposits during demonetization don't make the assessee a tainted party when similar transactions occurred before and after. The tribunal found the deposits properly explained and genuine, noting the assessee had verified borrower details. The appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization period.
2. Applicability of Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
3. Adherence to RBI guidelines by the assessee.
4. Validity of the Business Correspondent Agreement.
5. Compliance with the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017.
6. Assessment of the assessee's business activities and income.

Issue-Wise Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of Cash Deposits During Demonetization:
The assessee, engaged in the business of providing security, housekeeping, and manpower supply, acted as a business correspondent for First Rand Bank (FRB). The assessee collected loan installments in cash from borrowers and deposited these amounts into his bank accounts before transferring them to FRB. The Assessing Officer (AO) questioned the legitimacy of cash deposits made during the demonetization period (09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016) and added Rs. 89,41,86,882 to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) partially deleted the addition, accepting cash deposits made during other periods and non-SBN deposits during the demonetization period but upheld the addition for SBN deposits.

2. Applicability of Section 69A of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee argued that Section 69A, which deals with unexplained money, should not be invoked as he provided cogent evidence supporting the cash deposits. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's application of Section 69A for SBN deposits, but the Tribunal found that the assessee had adequately explained the source of all cash deposits, including those made in SBN.

3. Adherence to RBI Guidelines:
The CIT(A) noted that the assessee did not adhere to RBI guidelines during the demonetization period, specifically regarding the collection of cash in SBN. However, the Tribunal observed that FRB, a licensed bank, confirmed that the assessee acted within banking policies and procedures. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee's role as a custodian of FRB's money was legitimate and in accordance with the Business Correspondent Agreement.

4. Validity of the Business Correspondent Agreement:
The revenue questioned the validity of the Business Correspondent Agreement, noting that it came into existence after the end of the previous year. The Tribunal, however, found that the agreement, dated 08.11.2016, clearly outlined the assessee's responsibilities, including the collection of funds from customers. The Tribunal accepted the agreement as valid and relevant to the assessee's activities during the demonetization period.

5. Compliance with the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017:
The assessee argued that there was no prohibition on transacting in SBN up to the appointed date as per the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017. The Tribunal found that the assessee's transactions were in line with the Act and that the cash deposits in SBN were legitimate.

6. Assessment of the Assessee's Business Activities and Income:
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's business activities, including the collection of loan installments, were consistent and had been accepted in previous and subsequent assessment years. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee's role as a collection agent for FRB was legitimate and that the cash deposits were properly explained. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had complied with the requirements of the Income Tax Act and that no adverse inference could be drawn.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, dismissing the revenue's appeal. It found that the assessee had adequately explained the source of all cash deposits, including those made in SBN during the demonetization period, and that the Business Correspondent Agreement and compliance with RBI guidelines were valid. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee's business activities were legitimate and properly accounted for, and no additions to income were warranted.

---