Kempapura Srinivasareddy Uday Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)
ITAT Bangalore held that both AO and First Appellate Authority failed to conduct examination of cash deposit during demonetisation period in the light of CBDT instructions and hence matter remanded to that extent.
Facts- Assessee is an individual deriving income from other sources. The assessee has not filed return u/s. 139(1)/139(4) of the Act for AY 2017-18. A search u/s. 132 was conducted in the case of assessee in connection with search proceedings in group cases of M/s. Ectasy Projects Pvt. Ltd. and NBR Group. It was noticed that assessee has deposited Rs.11,41,500 in his bank account. There was no explanation submitted by the assessee, accordingly for want of proper explanation Rs. 11,41,500 was treated as income u/s. 69A and tax was calculated as per section 115BBE of the Act.
The First Appellate Authority (FAA) concluded that assessee has failed to explain the source of money deposited and hence confirmed the order of the AO. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the assessee.
Conclusion- Held that both the authorities have not examined the issue in the light of CBDT Instruction/Notification regarding examination/investigation of cash deposits during the demonetisation period. The coordinate Bench of the Tribunal has decided similar issue in the case of Bhoopalam Marketing Services P. Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA NO. 375 & 564 /Bang/ 2022 for the AY 20 17-18 in which it has been directed to AO for examination/investigation of cash deposits during the demonetisation period as per CBDT instructions. Thus, we remit this issue back to the AO for fresh examination of cash deposit during the demonetisation period in the light of CBDT instructions to the extent of applicability of the case.
