Demonetization cash deposits of Rs. 15 lakh accepted with proper documentation, but rental income claims rejected without evidence

ITAT Visakhapatnam held that assessee properly explained Rs. 15,00,000 cash deposits during demonetization period through documented bank withdrawals made in July 2016 after redeeming mutual fund investments. However, additional cash balances claimed from rental income and past savings were rejected due to lack of documentary evidence. Regarding TDS under section 194IA, tribunal ruled that where property has three joint co-owners with equal shares, and individual consideration per co-owner falls below Rs. 50 lakhs threshold, TDS provisions do not apply. Revenue's demand for treating assessee as assessee-in-default was dismissed as unsustainable.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the cash deposits during the demonetization period amounting to Rs. 17,86,000/- were properly explained by the assessee under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the assessee was liable to deduct Tax at Source (TDS) under Section 194-IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the purchase of an immovable property from joint co-owners.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Unexplained Cash Deposits During Demonetization (A.Y. 2017-18):

The primary issue in ITA No. 244/VIZ/2023 for the assessment year 2017-18 was whether the cash deposits totaling Rs. 17,86,000/- made by the assessee during the demonetization period were adequately explained. The assessee had claimed that these deposits were sourced from prior cash withdrawals, rental income, and other savings. The Assessing Officer (AO) initially treated these deposits as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, due to insufficient documentary evidence provided by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO's decision, noting the lack of documentary evidence.

Upon appeal, the Appellate Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee demonstrated cash withdrawals amounting to Rs. 15,00,000/- through bank statements. However, the Tribunal found no satisfactory evidence for the remaining Rs. 2,86,000/-, which was purportedly from rental income and past savings. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to consider Rs. 15,00,000/- as properly explained, partly allowing the appeal.

2. TDS Deduction on Property Purchase from Joint Co-owners (A.Y. 2015-16):

In ITA No. 268/VIZ/2023 for the assessment year 2015-16, the issue revolved around the applicability of TDS under Section 194-IA for a property purchase involving joint co-owners. The assessee had purchased a property for Rs. 99,00,000/- from three joint co-owners, with each receiving Rs. 33,00,000/-. The AO treated the assessee as "assessee in default" for failing to deduct TDS, raising a demand of Rs. 1,79,340/-.

The assessee contended that since the consideration paid to each co-owner was below Rs. 50,00,000/-, the provisions of Section 194-IA did not apply. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, interpreting that the section applies to individual transferors, and since each co-owner received less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, the TDS provision was not applicable. Thus, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, annulling the demand raised by the revenue authorities.

Conclusion:

The appeals were adjudicated as follows: ITA No. 244/VIZ/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18) was partly allowed, with Rs. 15,00,000/- of the cash deposits considered explained. ITA No. 268/VIZ/2023 (A.Y. 2015-16) was allowed, with no TDS liability for the property purchase from joint co-owners. The Tribunal's decisions were pronounced in the open court on 25th September, 2024.

---