O R D E R

This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 05.09.2023 passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year

2017-18.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

“1. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of learned AO in making an addition of Rs.22,39,500/- u/s.69A of the Act.

2. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of learned AO in invoking the provisions of S.115BBE of the Act.

3. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in confirming the action of the AO in charging interest u/s.234A/B/C/D.

4. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in confirming the action of AO in initiating penalty u/s.271AAC of the Act which is wholly unsustainable in law and on facts of the case.”

3. As per the verification of the data, the Revenue Authorities found that during the demonetisation period, the assessee deposited Rs.21,45,000/- in his various accounts. The assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 declaring income taxable income of Rs.6,68,400/-. The return of income was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 24.09.2018. The reason for selecting the case under limited scrutiny is that “cash deposits during the demonetisation period as compared to returned income”. In response to notice under Section 142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer issued letters under Section 133(6) of the Act to all the Banks where the assessee has made the cash deposits and from the information it was found that the assessee deposited Rs.21,45,000/- in different Bank account at different dates. The assessee has filed various details such as copy of Bank accounts where the cash was deposited during the demonetisation period, copy of online response given at the time of cash transaction details 2016 alongwith source of cash deposit made from various Banks. On different occasions, the assessee has given the source of cash deposits. After taking cognisance of all these details, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee accepted that there is no paper with him and the cash was distributed within his family itself. But, after verification, the Assessing Officer has seen that the name of the persons was not that of assessee’s family members but neighbours. The assessee has submitted the confirmation and Adhar Card number of the purchaser but no main details of their PAN, copy of bank account from which transaction was made was produced. The assessee issued letter under Section 133(6) of the Act to all the purchasers but none has submitted any details. The Assessing Officer therefore made addition of Rs.22,39,500/- as per Section 59A of the Act as unexplained money as well as assessed the total income of the assessee under Section 115BBE of the Act at the rate of 60%.

4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5. The Ld. AR submitted that the source of cash deposit in different Bank account is from Gold and the details of Gold sold to different purchasers alongwith their confirmation was submitted to the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. However, the Assessing Officer, in his Assessment Order noted that the purchaser did not respond to the notice under Section 133(6) of the Act and these purchasers were neighbours and not that of the relatives of the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is saving his pension as well as the assessee was having certain jewellery of his deceased wife and, therefore, Bank deposits were properly verifiable from the details given by the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that in alternate, the taxability under Section 115BBE of the Act at 60% is not at all justified and this is a prejudicial ground. The Ld. AR further reiterated that the assessee has made all t