Follow Us :

PM Narendra Modi’s has announced demonetisation of old Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 currency on 8th November 2016 and after that there was lot of ways people started trying to covert their Black Money into White and one such way was using Bank account of others.  Government is watching such development closely and to curb this hass issued a notification asking banks to report all cash deposit between 9 Nov to 30 Dec in AIR report on or before 31st January 2016.

Government has also issued a Press Release Yesterday and warned to take Strict Action against Tax Evaders using other persons’ Bank Accounts to convert their Black Money into New Denomination Notes and against Person(s) who allows His Or Her Bank Account to be misused for this purpose can be Prosecuted for Abetment under Income Tax Act;

In above background Yesterday there was a Income Tax notice, which was circulating on Whatsapp  and on other social media channels regarding deposit of Cash in bank account by an Assessee namely M/s. Sitaram Enterprises from Sikkim.

Notice was in respect of cash deposit of Rs. mere 4,51,000/- in current account maintained by M/s. Sitaram Enterprises with State Bank of Sikkim from November 12 – 14 ,  which is far below the limit of Rs. 12.50 Lakh in current for AIR reporting notified by Government vide Notification No. 104/2016 dated 15.11.2016.

In his notice dated November 18 – signed by Norbu Bhutia, deputy director of Income Tax (Investigation) at Siliguri unit – the depositor has been asked to appear before the deputy director on (or before) November 25 to explain the source of deposits, along with supporting documentary evidence.

Although notice is been duly issued but the officer has failed to mention that under which section he has issued the notice or called the assessee and details and what lead to his suspicion.
Some people are also discussing the authenticity of the Notice which in our opinion should not have been the case as officer himself has confirmed to a leading newspaper regarding the authenticity of the same.
I am not sure issuing notices for small deposits to taxpayers Is this the start of Tax Terrorism under BJP regime  or it is it the step in right direction to curb the black money.
Copy of notice issued is as follows:-

FUNNY REPLY TO ABOVE NOTICE CIRCULATING ON WHATSAPP ( Reply is just for fun and is neither by Taxpayer and nor the actual reply)

Image Sources- WHatsapp

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.


  1. RAKESH NEGI says:


  2. CA Kedar Gokhale says:

    Some scrupulous persons are taking advantage f current situation to flees money from people. One of my clients received a phone call that Income Tax Department has planned a search on his factory next day at 2.00 pm and asked him to be present there to attend the search.

    Very foolish. From when the department has started to inform assesses in advance that they are being raided.

  3. SALAGAME says:

    I have a query. let us say if ‘A’ and ‘B’ are unknown to each other. if A puts some money to B’s a/c without informing B, how can B will be prosecuted ?. In the bank, while A is crediting money to B , while filling up SB challan, there is no requirement of B’s approval.. hence how can anybody question B ? Also, in most of the Bank’s SB challan doesn’t ask / validate ‘A’ ‘s background and reason for crediting the money to B’s account. Hence how can IT dept make poorfellow ‘B’ responsible ? … Can anyone explain ?


    Click the following to access the shared link:
    Demonetisation drive: I-T department sends notice on large cash deposits
    ET has got hold of notice sent by I-T department of Siliguri, enquiring of cash deposits made by people in State Bank of Sikkim from November 12 – 14.
    click here to read the full article


    I am also to add that Section 133(6) gives powers to calling for information in existing cases and not presumptive cases. Conditions to be fulfilled can be summarised –

    The power to seek information depends upon whether the same is being useful for a proceeding. As such,
    there should be proceeding which is in existence at that particular time. It is an essential condition that
    information should be useful for a present proceeding. The language of sectioon 133(6) does not to include any future proceeding.

    Information under this section cannot be sought for in case of any hypothetical proceedings which may or may not take place. The kind of power to seek information which is not connected with any proceedings is not contemplated under section 133(6).

    The Calcutta High Court in Dwijendra Lal Brahmachari v. New Central Jute Mills Company Limited, 112 ITR 568) held that a statutory power cannot be exercised without applying mind and the power can be exercised only if an officer is satisfied that the information is relevant for the purpose of adjudicating a proceeding pending before him. The power provided in this section cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner.


    Tax Guru articles have repeatedly pointed out that one becomes punishable with fine only when there is a difference between assessed income and returned income. If the cash transaction has taken place, the Department may have to wait till the due date for for filing ITR is over i.e. 31 March 2018.

    However, it is to be noted that a new drop down list for cash transaction has been created in efiling web site.

    I wonder as to when it will become perational.

    If the Department is in a hurry, on each and every transaction exceeding the limits prescribed by the Government, it may be to curb further payments in cash ion Accounts.

    On any case the Banks are to report the details only after 30 December, 2017.

    How come the notice was issued?

    I think the Government also has prescribed a specific format for issue of notice.

    Panic should not be created by the Department

  7. Ram Trivedi says:

    Sir how could it be possible transaction and notice in same year ?
    And notice is in regard of books of account even he would have not given a chance to file a return.
    And under which clause and section this was given.


    As per DGIT Directory of officials of WB, Sikkim and NE Region, Sri Norbu Bhutia is DDIT 1(3) Shillong. So how could he sign as DDIT Siliguri is a million dollar question. Incidentally another communication dated 01/09/2016 from DGIT mentions Mr Norbu Bhutia as ADIT Siliguri with additional charge of Malda. Now if he is indeed ADIT, how he has signed as DDIT. And if he is DDIT Shillong, how he is in Siliguri. Is it some ghost situation or just something that is beyond our imagination?

  9. kabeep puratchivendan says:

    Surely it is fake notice .
    1. Notice date and date of delivery
    2.Jurisdiction of the officer
    3. PAN NT mentioned
    4.AIR information may be scrutinised in the completing of the financial year

  10. Parimal Parikh says:

    If this is indeed a fake notice, wild publicity should be made by Finance Ministry calling it to be either fake or inadvertently issued so that the unfounded fear created by it by it although the clarification issued by CBDT earlier, is removed from the minds of the people at large.

  11. KK says:

    In my opinion the notice seems to be fake because legally it should be issued only when existing financial year have been closed and ITR have been submitted by concern.

  12. Saurabh Kotasthane says:

    This is fake….

    I will explain How….

    1) First thing is that notice can be firstly issued by AO and not director general of Income Tax.

    2)PAN is absent in the notice.

    3)The letters like Government of Finance, Ministry of Revenue, etc. will not be mentioned on the notice.

    Hence, it is sufficient to conclude that the notice is prima facie FAKE….

    Also refer provision of following section…

    As per Sec 10(26AAA) Any income, which accrues or arises to a Sikkimese individual from any source in the State of Sikkim or by way of dividend or interest on securities, shall not be included in the total income of such individual…..

    So we can conclude that it is fake notice…Dnt spread rumers as professional it’s our prime responsibility….

  13. Ash says:

    Fake notice. How a commissioner of one state issue the notice to business situated in another state. Also how notice dated 18 November served to the assesses on same date when the issuing authority and receiving party are two different state. Please do not post these type of fake letters.

  14. GV says:

    In my view,
    This notice would not have been issued at this time itself, as the depositor being a Firm, will be anyways be assessible to income tax. falling in the account of firm no way it could be escaped from assessment. And on failure to include this income in the ROI for the AY 2017-18, this query could have been raised and notice could have been served with complete authority.
    And now this Trader may anyways show it as receipts from business activity.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Post by Date
April 2024