ITAT deleted addition for cash deposits in bank during demonetization period following CBDT Instruction that no addition to be made up to Rs. 2.50 lakhs
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 3800 (2023) (09) ITAT
In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) in confirming addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of cash deposited in the bank account of assessee during demonetization period.
Before the ITAT, the assessee contended that as per CBDT Instruction No. 3/2017 the tax authorities were directed not to undertake any investigation or action in the cases of individuals where the cash deposits are less than Rs.2,50,000/-. Therefore, the appeal of assessee be allowed and AO may kindly be directed to delete the addition.
CBDT vide Instruction No. 3/2017 in para 1.1 of the guidelines has stated as under:
Cash out of earlier income or savings
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 source of such amount can be either household savings/savings from past income or amounts claimed to have been received from any of the sources mentioned in Paras 2 to 6 below. Amounts above this cut-off may require verification to ascertain whether the same is explained or not. 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.
The Income Tax Department could not controvert that there is CBDT Instruction (supra) directing the tax authorities not to investigate and take action in the cases where cash deposits are less than Rs.2,50,000/- during demonetization period.
In view of above, the ITAT observed that the cash deposits by the individual assessee, in the present case, was less than the prescribed limit as per the CBDT Instruction No. 3/2017 para 1.1 of guide line.
Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the the sole grievance of assessee and AO was directed to delete the addition.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- Jewellery purportedly received from grandparent under Will added as unexplained credits
- SC lays down tests to determine if a debt is financial debt or operational under IBC
- Commonality of directors of companies does not mean deposits received was bogus
- Application though named as rectification but if tax is not legitimate, it also touches merit: HC
- Cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 taken as per valuer report by reverse indexing of FMV
