IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORESHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDAPRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6611/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year :2017–18)

Shravan Singh Parmar, C02 – 02 Ramratan Co. HSG, Ramdev Park Bind, Shiwargarden, Mira RD E, Thane - 401105 ……………. Appellant PAN – CEVPP3823F v/s ITO, Ward-2(1), Qureshi Mansion, Gokhale Road, ……………. Respondent Thane - 400602 Assessee by :Shri Bhupendra Shah, CA Revenue by : Smt. Smitha V. Nair, CIT(DR)

Date of Hearing – 14/05/2025 Date of Order –19/05/2025

O R D E R

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 29/11/2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year

2017-18.

2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the followinggrounds: –

“1. In the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred in passing the order u/s 144 without granting personal hearing through video conferencing and also passing order u/s 144 just because Appellant could not comply with the show cause notice even though even details were furnished during the course of assessment.

2. In the facts of the case and in Law, the learned AO erred in making addition of Rs. 12,24,500/-by arbitrarily adding cash deposit made in bank account maintained with Federal Bank during demonetization period amounting to Rs. 12,24,500/- asunexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE thereby a. Disregarding the fact that the cash deposit were out of the sums received from his customers to whom loan were given by the Appellant against their gold ornaments b. Disregarding the fact that the Appellant is not liable to maintain books of accounts and therefore section 69A is not applicable c. Arbitrarily rejecting details of cash deposits even though each and every details was submitted about the source and nature of receipt and the interest amount earned is duly shown in the return of income.

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in confirming the same there by not considering the written submissions and several judgments cited before him. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred in levying interest w/s 234A, B, C and D & initiating penalty u/s

271(1)[c).”

3. The only grievance raised by the assessee, in the present appeal,is against the addition of Rs.12,24,500/- under section 69A of the Acton account of cash deposits in the bank account during the demonetization period.

4. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is an individual and is, inter alia, engaged in providing loans to its customers against the gold ornaments and taking loans from the Federal Bank against the same. In this manner, the assessee also earns interest income from its customers. During the year under consideration, pursuant to a notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act on the basis of the information that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.12,24,500/- in his bank account maintained with Federal Bank, Sakinaka Mumbai Branch, during the demonetization period, i.e., from 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016, the assessee filed his return of income on 13.11.2019, declaring a total income of Rs.95,470/- earned from salary and interest. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee, inter alia, was asked to furnish the details of cash deposited in all bank accounts and sources thereof with documentary evidence. In response, the assessee submitted that he gives loans to customers against gold ornaments and takes loan from the Federal Bank against these gold ornaments. The assessee submitted that he has taken a gold loan from the bank against gold ornaments and paid interest @ 9% to 11% per annum. Further, on the loan provided to