TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1109
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(A)"], for the assessment year 2017-18, whereby the learned CIT(A) partly confirmed the assessment order dated 27.08.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144 of the Act. Facts of the Case 2. The brief factual matrix of the case, as emerging from the records, is that the assessee, an individual and resident of India (as per the order of Assessing Officer) for the relevant previous year, was identified by the Department through "Cash Transactions, 2016" module and Actionable Information Monitoring System (AIMS) as having made substantial cash deposits during the demonetization period announced by the Government of India on 08.11.2016. The assessee was found to have deposited cash aggregating to Rs. 10,00,000/- in two accou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of Rs. 10,00,000/- and other credit entries of Rs. 57,87,154/-) as unexplained income under section 69 of the Act. In the absence of any response or explanation from the assessee, the Assessing Officer proceeded to frame a best judgment assessment under section 144 of the Act, determining the total income at Rs. 67,87,154/-, and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) in respect of both additions. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A), NFAC. The assessee submitted that he was a permanent resident of the USA for many years and used to visit India occasionally. He claimed that during the period relevant to the assessment, he was out of the country and had no knowled....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emand report from the Assessing Officer. The AO, in the remand report, accepted the genuineness of certain entries such as interest income (Rs.1,57,316/-), intra-bank transfers, and software merger entries, but rejected the explanation regarding the cash deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- in the joint account and the credit of Rs. 10,00,000/- received from one Shri Ronak P. Patel on the ground of lack of independent documentary evidence such as confirmations or valid loan agreements. After considering the submissions and the remand report, the learned CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. The addition of Rs. 57,87,154/- was deleted except to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000/- deposited in cash on 10.11.2016 in the joint account with the assessee's wife, which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that in case of an individual (other than minors) not having any business income, no further verification is required to be made if total cash deposit is up to Rs. 2.5 lakh. In case of taxpayers above 70 years of age, the limit is Rs. 5.0 lakh per person... The basis for verification can be income earned during past years and its source, filing of ROI and income shown therein, cash withdrawals made from accounts etc. 8. The AR submitted that the assessee is an individual with no business income and that the cash deposit in question of Rs. 5,00,000/- was made in a joint account with his wife, which falls within the permissible threshold as per the SOP. It was further submitted that the cash deposit was explained as being out of past house....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the assessee is neither a senior citizen above 70 years nor is the deposit in question below Rs. 2.5 lakh; hence, the benefit of non-verification under paragraph 1.1 of the SOP is not available to him. Accordingly, the DR submitted that the AO and the CIT(A) were justified in treating the cash deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- as unexplained under section 69 of the Act, as the claim of source remained unsubstantiated. 10. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the parties, the material available on record, the assessment order passed under section 144, and the impugned appellate order passed by the learned CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act. We have also perused the relevant Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the CBDT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... should be based on income earned in past years, return of income filed, cash withdrawals, and other relevant sources. We find that in the case of the assessee, the total cash deposit under dispute is Rs. 5,00,000/- made in a single day (10.11.2016) in a joint account. The assessee is not engaged in business, and there is no material brought on record to establish that the cash deposit had any nexus with unaccounted business receipts or fictitious transactions. The explanation regarding availability of household cash and personal withdrawals from earlier remittances is plausible to a reasonable extent. 14. In our considered view, applying the CBDT's SOP, a cash deposit of Rs. 2,50,000/- by an individual without business income should....