TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1.1 Whether cash deposits of specified bank notes of ?1,000 denomination, received and deposited after 25.11.2016 in violation of RBI/Central Government notifications, could be assessed as "unexplained money" under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
1.2 Whether sustaining an addition under section 69A on such cash deposits, when the corresponding sales have already been included in the disclosed turnover and accepted in scrutiny assessment, results in impermissible double addition.
1.3 Whether violation of RBI/Government directives regarding acceptance of specified bank notes automatically renders the related cash deposits "unexplained" for income-tax purposes, notwithstanding their reflection in regular books of account and their linkage to recorded sales.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 & 2: Taxability of post 25.11.2016 SBN deposits as unexplained money and allegation of double addition
Legal framework (as discussed)
2.1 The Tribunal examined the applicability of section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to cash deposits of ?3,66,000 made in ?1,000 specified bank notes after 25.11.2016, and the consequential tax at special rate under section 115BBE.
2.2 The Tribunal referred to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance notification F. No. 10/3/2016 dated 08.11.2016 (as amended), permitting petrol pumps to accept specified bank notes of ?1,000 only up to 25.11.2016.
2.3 The Tribunal also adverted to the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 and to the continued liability of the Government/RBI to exchange specified bank notes up to 30.12.2016, to assess whether the notes had continuing monetary value for income-tax purposes.
Interpretation and reasoning
2.4 The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a petrol pump dealer, was lawfully permitted to accept specified bank notes of ?1,000 up to 25.11.2016. The assessee deposited a total of ?5,19,000 in such notes in the bank after 25.11.2016. The Assessing Officer allowed credit for cash in hand of ?1,53,000 as on 25.11.2016 (as per the cash book), and treated the balance ?3,66,000 as unexplained money under section 69A, on the ground that the assessee could not have lawfully accepted such notes after 25.11.2016.
2.5 The Tribunal found as a matter of fact that:
(a) The assessee maintained regular books of account, including a cash book, which were examined in scrutiny assessment.
(b) No adverse inference was drawn regarding entries of sales, purchases, stock movement or closing stock of MS/HSD; all purchases through banking channels and sales to customers were accepted.
(c) Comparative figures of cash sales and cash deposits for the relevant year and the immediately preceding year (including the demonetisation period) were consistent and satisfactory, showing no abnormal pattern.
2.6 The Tribunal further recorded that the gross sales of ?8.21 crores and the net profit of ?7,27,588 disclosed in the audited accounts were accepted in scrutiny. The sales of ?3,66,000 made on 30.11.2016 and 01.12.2016 against which the disputed specified bank notes were received were part of the disclosed turnover; the Assessing Officer had not reduced or excluded these sales from the turnover.
2.7 On this basis, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had, in effect, accepted the genuineness of the sales transactions corresponding to the ?3,66,000, and that the only objection was to the acceptance of specified bank notes as a mode of payment after the notified cut-off date.
2.8 The Tribunal reasoned that where the sale of goods is accepted as genuine, duly recorded in the regular books, and forming part of the disclosed turnover on which profit is computed and taxed, the cash realised from such sales cannot be treated as "unexplained money" under section 69A. The nature and source of the cash - namely, sale proceeds from petrol pump business - stood established.
2.9 The Tribunal observed that treating the same amount of ?3,66,000 both as part of sales (included in the turnover and profit computation) and again as unexplained money under section 69A would result in double addition of the same economic inflow, which is impermissible when the source is already accepted and taxed in the regular course.
Conclusions
2.10 The Tribunal concluded that the conditions for invoking section 69A were not satisfied because the nature and source of the cash deposits were fully explained and supported by books of account and accepted sales transactions.
2.11 It was held that the addition of ?3,66,000 as unexplained money under section 69A, and taxation thereof under section 115BBE, was not legally justified and would amount to a double addition. The addition was therefore deleted.
Issue 3: Effect of violation of RBI/Government directives on characterization of deposits as "unexplained" for tax purposes
Legal framework (as discussed)
3.1 The Tribunal considered the interplay between RBI/Central Government notifications on demonetisation, the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017, and the income-tax provisions, particularly section 69A.
3.2 The Tribunal noted that while the petrol pump was not permitted to accept specified bank notes of ?1,000 after 25.11.2016, the liability of the Government/RBI to honour/exchange these notes continued up to 30.12.2016, and the notes retained monetary value up to that date.
Interpretation and reasoning
3.3 The Tribunal held that accepting specified bank notes in violation of RBI/Government notifications may attract penal consequences under the RBI Act or the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017, but such violation does not automatically render the related cash unexplained for income-tax purposes.
3.4 The Tribunal reasoned that the Income-tax Act proceeds on the existence of income, assets and their explained or unexplained nature, and not merely on regulatory infractions under other statutes. A regulatory breach in the mode or legality of receiving consideration does not, by itself, convert an otherwise genuine and recorded business receipt into unexplained money, if its nature and source are established through regularly maintained and accepted books of account.
3.5 The Tribunal emphasised that in the present case, the deposits arose from genuine, recorded sales of MS/HSD, and the only "illegality" alleged was the acceptance of a prohibited form of currency after the notified date. That illegality, in the Tribunal's view, did not change the character of the receipt from explained business income to unexplained money under section 69A.
3.6 The Tribunal also relied on a coordinate Bench decision wherein it was held that the source of deposits cannot be rejected solely because the assessee accepted specified bank notes in violation of RBI notification.
Conclusions
3.7 The Tribunal held that contravention of RBI/Central Government notifications regarding acceptance of specified bank notes does not, by itself, justify an addition under section 69A when the deposits are traceable to genuine, accepted business sales and are duly recorded in the books.
3.8 The cash deposits of ?3,66,000, though arising from acceptance of specified bank notes beyond the permitted date, remained explained business receipts, and could not be treated as unexplained money for income-tax purposes; the addition was accordingly deleted.
TaxTMI 
