Cash deposits under s.69A during demonetization remanded for fresh review citing natural justice on agricultural income and loans

ITAT Bangalore set aside the addition made under s.69A on cash deposits during the demonetization period and remanded the matter to the AO for de novo adjudication. The assessee had claimed that the deposits represented the husband's agricultural income and unsecured loans from a cousin, supporting this with pahani records, a confirmation letter and bank statements, but had not been afforded effective opportunity before lower authorities. Observing violation of principles of natural justice, ITAT directed the AO to reconsider the claim afresh in accordance with law, partly allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the assessment and first appellate orders, confirming addition of cash deposits during the demonetization period as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act, were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice due to lack of adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard.

1.2 Consequent upon the above, whether the matter required to be remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting proper opportunity to the assessee.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Alleged violation of principles of natural justice in assessment and first appellate proceedings

Interpretation and reasoning

2.1 The Tribunal noted, on the basis of rival submissions and material on record, that the assessee could not effectively represent her case before both the Assessing Officer and the first appellate authority.

2.2 It was recorded that the assessee claimed the source of cash deposits to be her husband's agricultural income and unsecured loans from a cousin, and that before the first appellate authority, the assessee submitted pahani in the name of the husband, a confirmation letter from the cousin, and bank statement.

2.3 The assessee's contention was that the Assessing Officer did not grant sufficient time to produce supporting records and that the first appellate authority issued only two notices in quick succession after a long gap and passed the appellate order in haste, which was urged as a breach of natural justice.

2.4 The Tribunal accepted that, in the facts of the case, the assessee had not been able to properly place her materials and substantiate her claim before the lower authorities, and that in the interest of natural justice and fair play, one more opportunity ought to be afforded.

Conclusions

2.5 The Tribunal held that, considering the admitted position that the assessee could not represent her case before both authorities below, and having regard to the assessee's production/offer of supporting documents, the matter required reconsideration by the Assessing Officer after granting reasonable opportunity. The existing assessment and appellate orders were therefore not sustained on the aspect of opportunity, without adjudicating on the merits of the addition itself.

Issue 2: Necessity of remand to the Assessing Officer and conditions thereof

Interpretation and reasoning

2.6 The Tribunal observed that the dispute centered around the explanation for cash deposits during the demonetization period and the evidentiary support for claimed sources, which required examination of documents such as pahani, confirmation of loan, and bank statements.

2.7 In view of the assessee's request through the authorised representative for one more opportunity and the undertaking to file all necessary documents and make due compliance, the Tribunal considered remand appropriate "in the interest of natural justice and fair play".

2.8 The Tribunal took note of the Revenue's contention that the assessee had been negligent and observed that, while granting another opportunity, it would be made clear that any further default by the assessee would disentitle her to leniency.

Conclusions

2.9 The Tribunal remitted the entire issue relating to cash deposits during the demonetization period, and the consequent addition under section 69A, to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

2.10 The Assessing Officer was directed to grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and the assessee was directed to file all necessary documents and comply with proceedings, with an express caveat that in case of further default no lenient view would be taken.

2.11 The appeal was treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes, inasmuch as the addition itself was neither confirmed nor deleted on merits but the matter was remanded for de novo consideration.

---