1. Salem Sree Ramavilas Chit Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2020] 423 ITR 525
(Mad.) Date of order: 4th
February, 2020 A.Y.: 2017-18
Assessment: (i) Effect of electronic
proceedings – Possibility of erroneous assessment if transactions and statement
of account of assessee not properly understood – A.O. to call for assessee’s
explanation in writing to conclude that cash deposits made by assessee post-demonetisation
of currency was unusual;
(ii) Unexplained money – Sections 69A and
115BBE of ITA, 1961 – Chit company – Tax on income included u/s 69A – Monthly
subscriptions / dues – Cash deposits of collection made post-demonetisation of
currency by Government – Cash deposits during period in question not in
variance with same period during preceding year – Addition of amount as
unexplained money – Provisions of section 115BBE cannot be invoked
The assessee was in
the chit fund business. For the A.Y. 2017-18, the A.O. added the amounts
received and deposited by it during the period between 9th November,
2016 and 31st December, 2016, post-demonetisation of Rs. 500 and Rs.
1,000 notes by the Government on 8th November, 2016 to the income of
the assessee. The order stated that the assessee did not properly explain the
source and the purpose of cash along with party-wise break-up as required in
the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The assessee filed
a writ petition and challenged the assessment order. The Madras High Court
allowed the writ petition and held as under:
‘i) The order making the assessee liable to tax at the maximum marginal
rate of tax by invoking section 115BBE was misplaced. The assessee had prima
facie demonstrated that the assessment proceedings had resulted in
distorted conclusion on the facts that the amount collected by it during the
period was huge and remained unexplained and therefore the amount was liable to
be treated as unaccounted money in the hands of the assessee u/s 69A. The
closing cash on hand during the preceding months of the same year was not at
much variance with the closing cash on hand as on 31st October,
2016. The demonetisation of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1,000 notes by the Government was
on 8th November, 2016 and the collection of the assessee between 1st
November, 2016 and 8th November, 2016 was not unusual compared to
its collection during the month of November, 2015. The cash deposits made by
the assessee in the year 2016 were not at variance with the cash deposits made
by it in the preceding year. Collection of monthly subscription / dues by the
assessee during the period in question was reasonable as compared to the same
period in the year 2015.
ii) Since the
assessment proceedings no longer involved human interaction and were based on
records alone, such assessment proceedings could lead to erroneous assessment
if officers were not able to understand the transactions and statement of
accounts of the assessee or the nature of the assessee. The assessee was to
explain its stand in writing so that the A.O. could arrive at an objective
conclusion on the facts based on the record.
iii) Under these
circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to
the respondent to pass a fresh order within a period of sixty days from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall file additional
representation if any by treating the impugned order as the show cause notice
within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. Since the Government of India has done away with the human interaction
during the assessment proceedings, it is expected that the petitioner will
clearly explain its stand in writing so that the respondent-A.O. can come to an
objective conclusion on facts based on the records alone. It is made clear that
the respondent will have to come to an independent conclusion on facts
uninfluenced by any of the observations contained herein.’
