Additions under Section 69A deleted for demonetization cash deposits in third party accounts without proper enquiry

ITAT Agra allowed the appeal, deleting additions made under Section 69A for cash deposits during demonetization period. The tribunal held that since the bank accounts belonged to a third party (proprietor), authorities should have issued summons under Section 131 or made enquiries under Section 133(6) with the actual account holder before making additions in assessee's hands. Revenue failed to proceed against the actual account holder despite accepting his return, and did not file cross-objection, indicating no grievance with CIT(A)'s order.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Addition of Rs. 7,11,500/- under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act.
3. Treatment of bank account ownership and related cash deposits.
4. Addition of Rs. 4,97,810/- as net profit on a presumptive basis under Section 44AD.
5. Compliance with procedural requirements during assessment and appellate proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay:

The appeal was filed 174 days late. The assessee argued that the delay was due to non-communication of the CIT(A) order by the counsel's staff, as the email ID registered was not monitored. The Tribunal condoned the delay, emphasizing that the assessee should not be penalized for procedural lapses during the transition to electronic communication. The Tribunal cited the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities, referencing the Supreme Court decision in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Ors. vs Mst. Katiji & Ors.

2. Addition of Rs. 7,11,500/- under Section 69A:

The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 7,11,500/- as unexplained money under Section 69A due to cash deposits in demonetized currency in two bank accounts. The assessee contended that one account (No. 384601010011133) belonged to his brother's proprietorship, M/s Anurag Kumar Neeraj Kumar, and not to him. The Tribunal found that the account was indeed owned by the brother, supported by a bank certificate and the brother's tax return, which declared the turnover and availed of the presumptive taxation scheme. The Tribunal concluded that the department should have proceeded against the brother, not the assessee, and ordered the deletion of the addition.

3. Treatment of Bank Account Ownership and Related Cash Deposits:

The Tribunal examined the ownership of the bank account No. 384601010011133, which was in the name of M/s Anurag Kumar Neeraj Kumar. The assessee's brother, Neeraj Kumar, was identified as the proprietor. The Tribunal noted that the department did not issue summons or conduct inquiries with Neeraj Kumar, who had declared the transactions in his tax return. The Tribunal determined that the addition was wrongly made in the assessee's hands and should be deleted.

4. Addition of Rs. 4,97,810/- as Net Profit on Presumptive Basis:

The AO applied an 8% profit rate on deposits totaling Rs. 62,22,636/- in the bank accounts, treating it as the assessee's turnover. The Tribunal found that these deposits were in the brother's account, and the brother had already declared the turnover under Section 44AD. The Tribunal held that the department should have scrutinized the brother's return if necessary, rather than attributing the income to the assessee. The addition was ordered to be deleted.

5. Compliance with Procedural Requirements:

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not participate in the assessment proceedings but did engage during the appellate stage. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A)'s powers are co-terminus with those of the AO, including the power of enhancement. The Tribunal criticized the department for not pursuing inquiries with Neeraj Kumar, which could have clarified the ownership and source of the deposits.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of all additions made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A). The Tribunal emphasized that the department should have proceeded against the correct party, Neeraj Kumar, and not the assessee. The decision underscores the importance of correctly identifying the taxpayer responsible for the income and ensuring procedural fairness during assessments.

---