TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 713
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ank of India's Circular No. RB1/2016-17/112 DCM (Plg) No. 1226/10.27.00/2016-17 dated 08.11.2016? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in not considering the various guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India from time to time on the Demonetization including Circular No. RBI/2016-17/112 DCM(Plg) No. 1226/10.27.00/2016-17 dated 08.11.2016 and Circular No. RBI/2016-17/130 DCM(Pig) No. 1273/10.27.00/2016-17 dated 14.11.2016 while deciding the appeal of the assessee society? 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and/or withdraw any of all of the above grounds of appeal in the course of appellate proceeding." 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a Multistate Cooperative Society registered under the Maharashtra State Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and also under (Central) Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. It is engaged in extending micro credit and micro savings programmes aimed at self-employed people with low income and provides micro finance loans to its members who are below the poverty line. The main source of income for the assessee is intere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that it is a multi-state co-operative society dealing in micro credit and micro savings program aimed at self-employed women with low incomes. The Ld. AO observed that out of the total cash deposits of Rs. 14,32,87,200/-, the assessee has deposited a cash of Rs. 7,90,34,500/- in old notes wherein the "Patsansthas" of the assessee were not allowed to accept the old SBN notes. Since, the Ld. AO was not satisfied with the reply of the assessee, hence, the impugned addition of Rs. 7,90,34,500/- was made u/s 69A of the Act. During the course of appellant proceedings, the appellant has submitted the details of cash deposited in and withdrawn from the appellant's various bank accounts in Mumbai and Pune in A.Y. 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19. It has been stated that a summary of such deposits and withdrawals was also submitted to Ld. AO. During A.Y 2017-18, the aggregate cash deposits made by the appellant in bank accounts were Rs. 122.15 crores as against Rs. 111.40 crores in A.Y. 2016-17 and Rs. 158.02 crores in A.Y. 2018-19. Thus, in A.Y.2017-18, the cash deposits increased by 9.65% and in A.Y. 2018-19, the cash deposits increased by 29.36%. No significant anomal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... period. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has duly furnished all the requisite details relating to cash deposits before the Ld. AO and hence discharged its burden of proving the source of cash deposits. Referring to Page Nos. 35 to 54 of the paper book, the Ld. AR submitted that the sample of 528 depositors was produced before the Ld. AO. He further submitted that the assessee also furnished the year-wise details of cash withdrawals from the bank accounts of the assessee pertaining to F.Y. 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 to the Ld. AO (page Nos. 20 to 24 of the paper book refers). The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. AO seems to have accepted the source, but still made the addition only because the said money was SBNs and were deposited during demonetization period. The Ld.AR submitted that when the source of cash deposits is duly explained by the assessee and when the Ld. AO has not brought any adverse material on record, the same cannot be treated as unexplained and no addition can be made u/section 69A of the Act. In support of its above contention, the Ld. AR relied upon the decision(s) of the coordinate Bench of the Pune Tribunal in the case of- (i) ITO vs. Ambika....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the relevant A.Y. 2017-18 for the reason that there are total of 67,000 depositors and if the amount deposited per depositor is calculated, the same works out to Rs. 1,179.62 and, therefore, the sum deposited is within the limit of Rs. 4000 per head which was allowed as per RBI notification at the time of demonetization. The Ld. CIT(A) has further observed that the assessee has provided all the requisite details such as state, full name, address etc. pertaining to its members who gave cash to the assessee, to the Ld. AO, the veracity of which could have been examined by him, but he did not do so and that the assertion of the Ld. AO that "Patsansthas" were not authorized to accept SBNs post 08.11.2016 has not been supported by any documentary evidence or RBI guideline. He, therefore, deleted the impugned addition of Rs. 7,90,34,500/- made by the Ld. AO. It is the submission of the assessee all along that the cash deposited during the demonetized period has been received from its members in regular course of its business which fact has been duly accepted by the Ld. AO/ CIT(A). The fact on record reveals that the assessee had placed the relevant documentary evidence to prove the s....