Cash deposits during demonetization and explanation of sources, resulting in partial relief but 10% net profit addition.

Dispute concerns cash deposits during the demonetization period and whether sources were satisfactorily explained for tax assessment under unexplained cash provisions. The assessee produced evidence of agricultural loans, fixed deposit maturities and past savings as sources for deposits, and bank statements showing withdrawals and redeposits; these explanations were accepted to the extent they could be substantiated. The assessee failed to fully account for personal expenses and drawings arising from cash withdrawals, and therefore a deemed addition was sustained by applying a net profit rate of 10% on the unexplained cash deposits, producing a partial allowance of the challenge.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay of 252 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal should be condoned. (ii) Whether the cash deposits of Rs. 18,00,000 made during the demonetisation period are unexplained and liable to be taxed under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and, if so, what is the correct quantification.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the appeal of 252 days is liable to be condoned.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined explanations for delay including non-receipt/awareness of the CIT(A)'s order on the assessee's part, and negligence by the assessee's advocate in informing the assessee. The Tribunal applied the liberal construction of "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and relied on precedents permitting condonation where counsel's negligence led to delay.

Conclusion: The delay of 252 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

Issue (ii): Whether the deposits of Rs. 18,00,000 are unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and what amount should be added to the assessee's income.

Analysis: The Tribunal considered bank statements, fixed deposit receipts, remand report, and submitted evidence of agricultural loans, past savings and fixed deposit maturities as sources of the deposited cash. The Tribunal found that while several sources were satisfactorily demonstrated, the assessee could not fully account for personal expenses and certain withdrawals. Balancing the partial explanation and residual unexplained amount, the Tribunal determined that a proportional quantification by applying a net profit rate is appropriate rather than sustaining the full addition made by the Assessing Officer.

Conclusion: The Tribunal directed an addition equal to 10% of Rs. 18,00,000 (Rs. 1,80,000) to be made in the hands of the assessee under Section 69A and directed the Assessing Officer to apply normal rates of income tax on that amount.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is partly allowed: delay is condoned and the addition is reduced by quantification to Rs. 1,80,000, with the Assessing Officer directed to give effect accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee furnishes partial but not complete documentary explanation for cash deposits during the demonetisation period, the Tribunal may quantify the taxable portion by applying a reasonable net profit rate rather than upholding the entire addition as unexplained income under Section 69A.

---