Gowdara Mahalingappa Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)
Conclusion: CBDT had issued instructions/notification for examining the specific cases regarding cash deposits during the demonetisation period. However, both the lower authorities had not done so and therefore, the matter was remanded for re-examination.
Held: Assessee was a partner in M/s Gowdara Jayadevappa Silks & Sarees deposited Rs.58,40,000 in a joint savings bank account with Bank during the demonetization period. A show cause notice was issued to assessee for which he filed a detailed written statement that the funds were from the firm’s cash reserves intended for a property purchase in Bengaluru. Assessee claimed that the cash was withdrawn from the firm’s accounts and later deposited in the personal account due to difficulties with the firm’s bank during the demonetization period. AO was not satisfied with the responses and completed the assessment treating the entire cash as unexplained income under Section 69A. It was held that CBDT had issued instructions/notification for examining the specific cases regarding cash deposits during the demonetisation period. However, both the lower authorities had not done so. In the case of M/s. Bhoopalam Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT in ITA NO. 375/Bang/2022 where cash deposits during demonetization were remanded for re-examination based on CBDT instructions. Assessee was directed to establish all relevant details to substantiate its claim in line with the above applicable instructions. However the burden was on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the deposit in order to fall outside the scope of unaccounted cash. AO should verify all the details / evidences filed by assessee based on the above direction and to consider the claim in accordance with law.
