Appeal allowed: deletions under Section 69A for demonetisation-period cash deposits upheld as genuine sale cancellation and alimony

ITAT MUMBAI allowed the appeal and deleted additions under s.69A relating to cash deposits during the demonetisation period. The tribunal accepted that a large deposit arose from cancellation of a sale agreement and was supported by bank evidence of payment to the vendor. Cash receipts totalling INR 1,56,000 were held to be permanent alimony/expenses returned by the prospective spouse's side and, together with documented withdrawals for wedding expenses, justified the deposits. No material proved the transactions were bogus.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether sufficient cause existed to condone a 139-day delay in filing the appeal.

2. Whether cash deposits made during the demonetisation period in bank accounts can be taxed as unexplained income by invoking section 69A in the absence of satisfactory explanation from the assessee.

3. Whether documentary evidence tendered by the assessee (notarised cancellation deed, seller's confirmation, wedding invitation, marriage certificate, bank statements and settlement documentation) satisfactorily explains the source of cash deposited during the demonetisation period despite absence of original deed or the final settlement deed being executed at a later date.

4. Whether the appellate authority (CIT(A)) was entitled to decide the appeal in absence of a remand report from the Assessing Officer after forwarding evidence under Rule 46A.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Condonation of delay (139 days)

Legal framework: Appeals to the Tribunal are subject to statutory limitation; condonation of delay is permissible where sufficient cause is shown.

Precedent Treatment: No precedents were cited or relied upon in the judgment.

Interpretation and reasoning: The assessee, a housewife, produced an affidavit and medical prescriptions evidencing pregnancy and hospital visits during the relevant period, and explained that the appellate order came to her knowledge on a later date only after receiving departmental intimation. The Tribunal examined the factual explanation and supporting medical documents.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where a factual explanation supported by medical records shows inability to act and there is no mala fide intent or benefit from delay, the delay can be condoned.

Conclusions: The Tribunal held there was sufficient cause and condoned the delay, proceeding to decide the appeal on merits.

Issue 2 - Addition under section 69A for demonetisation-period cash deposits

Legal framework: Section 69A treats as income unexplained money found deposited in bank accounts unless the assessee explains the nature and source of such money.

Precedent Treatment: No prior decisions were applied; the Tribunal evaluated statutory scheme and evidentiary record on its facts.

Interpretation and reasoning: The AO, in absence of any response during assessment, treated INR 11,13,500 deposited during demonetisation as unexplained and added it under section 69A. On appeal, the assessee furnished evidence under Rule 46A identifying three sources for the deposits (cancellation of agreement payment INR 9,50,000; permanent alimony/expenses/Meher INR 1,56,000; cash-in-hand INR 7,500). The CIT(A) accepted only the cash-in-hand. The Tribunal examined the contemporaneous documents: agreement for sale and bank payment for purchase, notarised cancellation deed and seller's confirmation for the INR 9,50,000; wedding invitation, marriage certificate, details of withdrawals and expenditures, and later settlement documents for INR 1,56,000; and bank statements showing deposits. The Tribunal applied the principle that absence of originals or timing of formal settlement does not ipso facto render the claimed source bogus where corroborative material exists and no material suggests fabrication.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - When an assessee produces credible documentary evidence and corroborative bank transactions that explain cash deposits during demonetisation, additions under section 69A must be deleted; strict commercial formalities are not decisive for family/ matrimonial transactions.

Conclusions: The Tribunal found the INR 9,50,000 proven by cancellation deed and seller's payment confirmation and deleted the addition attributable to that amount. The Tribunal also accepted the contemporaneous circumstantial evidence and expenditures relating to the marriage and dissolution to hold that INR 1,56,000 originated from the groom's side and was deposited during the demonetisation period, deleting that addition as well. The small cash-in-hand amount of INR 7,500 had already been accepted below.

Issue 3 - Sufficiency of documentary evidence and timing of settlement deed

Legal framework: Explanation under section 69A requires demonstration of nature and source of deposits; evidentiary sufficiency is judged on materials on record.

Precedent Treatment: No authoritative pronouncements were invoked distinguishing requirements for original documents versus copies or later-executed formal deeds in family/ matrimonial contexts.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that the inability to produce an original deed or the execution of a final settlement at a later date does not automatically render the claimed source unacceptable. The Tribunal noted corroboration: earlier bank payment to vendor for purchase of land (showing transaction genuineness), notarised cancellation document (even if original not produced), seller's confirmation of cash payment, bank statements evidencing withdrawals for wedding expenses and deposits, and contemporaneous invitation/marriage certificate. The Tribunal recognized that matrimonial settlements often rest on familial understandings rather than strict commercial documentation.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Documentary and circumstantial evidence that coherently explain deposits will suffice even if formalities (originals, contemporaneous formal settlement deed) are imperfect, especially for non-commercial family transactions.

Conclusions: The Tribunal accepted the assessee's documentary and circumstantial evidence as sufficient to explain both the cancellation payment and the alimony/expenses/Meher amounts, directing deletion of the additions under section 69A.

Issue 4 - Power of CIT(A) to decide appeal absent remand report after Rule 46A evidence forwarded

Legal framework: Rule 46A allows filing of evidence before appellate authority; the appellate authority may seek remand report from the AO but is not precluded from deciding an appeal if no remand report is furnished.

Precedent Treatment: No precedent cited.

Interpretation and reasoning: The CIT(A) forwarded the assessee's evidence to the AO and requested a remand report; no report was received despite opportunity. The Tribunal found that absence of a remand report did not bar the CIT(A) from proceeding to decide the appeal on the basis of materials available on record.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where the appellate authority has forwarded evidence to the AO and afforded opportunity, failure of the AO to furnish a remand report does not prevent the appellate authority from adjudicating the appeal on available evidence.

Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s competence to decide the appeal in absence of the remand report and proceeded to delete the additions based on the available record.

Overall Conclusion (Dispositive Ratio)

The Tribunal concluded that the assessee satisfactorily explained the source of the cash deposits made during the demonetisation period by producing corroborative documentary and bank evidence and that, on the peculiar facts, strict commercial formalities were not decisive for family or matrimonial transactions. Consequently, additions made under section 69A were deleted; the delay in filing the appeal was condoned; and the appeal was allowed.

---