ITAT upholds Rs. 9.46 lakh addition under Section 69A for unexplained demonetization deposits, deletes Rs. 9 lakh

ITAT upheld addition of Rs. 9,46,500/- under Section 69A for unexplained cash deposits during demonetization, rejecting assessee's claim that deposits were from earlier withdrawals. Tribunal found explanation unconvincing as retired person's behavior of frequent withdrawals despite substantial cash-in-hand was against normal human conduct. However, ITAT deleted Rs. 9,00,000/- from total addition, accepting withdrawals made just before demonetization. Enhanced tax rate under Section 115BBE was held inapplicable for AY 2017-18 following established precedents. Appeal partly allowed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:

• Whether the addition of Rs. 18,46,500/- made under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") on account of unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period was justified, particularly when the assessee claimed the deposits were from earlier cash withdrawals recorded in the bank accounts.
• Whether the explanation offered by the assessee regarding the source of cash deposits, including withdrawals purportedly for a house purchase that did not materialize, was acceptable and supported by evidence.
• Whether the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act, which prescribe a higher rate of tax on unexplained income, were applicable for the Assessment Year 2017-18 in respect of the addition made.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of addition under Section 69A of the Act on unexplained cash deposits

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 69A of the Act deals with unexplained money, where any sum found deposited in a bank account of the assessee is deemed to be income of the assessee if the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of such money. The burden lies on the assessee to establish the source of deposits. The Tribunal considered precedents where cash deposited shortly after withdrawal was accepted as a reasonable explanation, but also noted that mere assertions without corroborative evidence are insufficient.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal acknowledged the undisputed fact that Rs. 18,46,500/- was deposited in the assessee's bank account during the demonetization period. The assessee claimed these deposits originated from cash withdrawals made over the preceding financial years and the current year, which were allegedly intended for purchasing a residential property at Vishakhapattam. However, the Tribunal observed that the withdrawals were made on numerous occasions, even though the assessee claimed to have kept cash in hand, which was inconsistent with normal human behavior. The Tribunal also noted the absence of any documentary evidence such as agreement of sale or advance payment for the house purchase, weakening the assessee's explanation.

Key evidence and findings: The assessee submitted details of multiple withdrawals amounting to Rs. 18,46,000/- from 2014-15 to 2016, including Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- withdrawn shortly before demonetization. The assessee also withdrew Rs. 49,000/- on multiple occasions for household expenses. On the same day as the large deposit, the assessee transferred Rs. 18,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- to unknown accounts, which remained unexplained.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal partially accepted the explanation for Rs. 9,00,000/- withdrawn shortly before demonetization as genuine source of deposits, given the proximity and consistency with the claimed purpose. However, it rejected the remainder of the withdrawals as unsubstantiated and inconsistent with the assessee's lifestyle and behavior. The unexplained transfers on the day of deposit further cast doubt on the genuineness of the source.

Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee argued that the deposits were legitimate, arising from accumulated savings and withdrawals for a house purchase. The Revenue contended that the explanation was a "make-believe story" lacking evidentiary support. The Tribunal sided with the Revenue on most of the amount, except the Rs. 9,00,000/- withdrawn shortly before demonetization.

Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld addition of Rs. 9,46,500/- (Rs. 18,46,500/- less Rs. 9,00,000/-) under Section 69A as unexplained money, confirming the onus on the assessee to explain the source was not discharged fully.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 69A to the unexplained deposits

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 69A applies when the assessee fails to explain the nature and source of money found deposited in bank accounts. The unexplained sum is deemed income and taxable accordingly.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the assessee's disclosed sources of income (interest on SB accounts, pension, FD interest, NSC interest, etc.) totaling Rs. 3,70,454/- were insufficient and unrelated to the cash deposits. The assessee failed to establish any nexus between these disclosed incomes and the impugned deposits. Since the assessee was the owner of the money and failed to explain its source satisfactorily, the provisions of Section 69A were attracted.

Key evidence and findings: The assessee's income sources were documented but did not explain the large cash deposits. The unexplained portion of Rs. 9,46,500/- was thus rightly treated as unexplained money.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied Section 69A to the unexplained portion of the deposits, as the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof.

Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee's contention that the deposits were from known sources was rejected due to lack of evidence. The Revenue's stand was upheld.

Conclusions: The Tribunal dismissed the ground challenging applicability of Section 69A and upheld the addition under this provision.

Issue 3: Applicability of Section 115BBE of the Act for enhanced tax rate on unexplained income

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 115BBE prescribes a higher tax rate (60%) on unexplained income or investment. However, its applicability to AY 2017-18 was under scrutiny in various Tribunal decisions.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal referred to a series of decisions by Division and Single Member Benches of the Tribunal holding that Section 115BBE was not applicable for AY 2017-18. The Tribunal relied on these precedents to conclude that the enhanced rate of tax under Section 115BBE should not be levied for the year in question.

Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted consistent judicial pronouncements supporting non-applicability of Section 115BBE for AY 2017-18.

Application of law to facts: The addition was to be taxed as income but not at the enhanced rate prescribed by Section 115BBE.

Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee's argument against applicability of Section 115BBE was accepted. The Revenue did not contest this point vigorously.

Conclusions: The Tribunal allowed the ground raised by the assessee and disallowed levy of tax under Section 115BBE for AY 2017-18.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal made the following crucial determinations:

"The explanation of the appellant that the amount of cash withdrawn from 27.06.2014 to 21.10.2016 amounting to Rs. 18,46,000/- was used for re-deposit cannot be accepted in toto... However, we find that assessee had withdrawn Rs. 6,00,000/- on 26.09.2016 and Rs. 3,00,000/- on 21.10.2016. These two withdrawals totalling to Rs. 9,00,000/- just prior to demonetization period is accepted as part of the explained source of deposits... The remaining addition of Rs. 9,46,500/- is upheld."

"The appellant was found to be the owner of such money and he has not been able to offer explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the said money. As already discussed, the explanation offered by him was also not found satisfactory. Therefore, mischief of the provisions of Section 69A are clearly attracted in the present case."

"So far as taxing the addition at the enhanced rate of tax u/s 115BBE is concerned... enhanced rate prescribed u/s 115BBE is not applicable for AY 2017-18."

The core principles established include:

• The burden to explain the source of cash deposits under Section 69A is on the assessee, and mere assertions without documentary evidence are insufficient.
• Cash withdrawals made over a long period cannot be presumed to be held as cash-in-hand for re-deposit without credible evidence.
• Section 69A applies when the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the source of money found deposited.
• Section 115BBE's enhanced tax rate is not applicable for AY 2017-18 as per prevailing judicial precedents.

Final determinations on each issue:

• The addition of Rs. 18,46,500/- under Section 69A was partly sustained, with Rs. 9,00,000/- accepted as explained and Rs. 9,46,500/- treated as unexplained money.
• The unexplained amount was rightly subjected to taxation under Section 69A.
• The levy of tax under Section 115BBE was disallowed for the AY 2017-18.
• The appeal was partly allowed accordingly.

---