2022 (8) TMI 438 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds assessee's explanation for cash deposits during demonetization, emphasizes burden of proof

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the Ld.CIT(A)'s decision to allow the assessee's explanation for cash deposits during demonetization. ... Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash deposits - assessee withdrawing huge cash on 4 occasions inspite of having sufficient cash in hand and no immediate use of cash, as pointed out by the AO in the show cause notice - as submitted assessee has withdrawn cash and there is a nexus with the deposits made by the assessee in the bank - AO noticed that assessee has redeposited cash of ₹.1.012 crores in the bank account during demonetization period HELD THAT:- In order to verify the sources for such deposit, AO asked the assessee to prove the sources for the same. Assessee submitted the detailed submissions with the cash book, which disclosed the availability of sufficient cash in hand. The AO did not accept the details of cash withdrawals declared by the assessee during the year. We observe from the submissions that the assessee has disclosed the sufficient funds available with him to deposit the same. There is no evidence with the Assessing Officer to dispute with the availability of funds with the assessee. We observe that assessee had sufficient funds more than the amount deposited in the bank. Merely because assessee did not explain the reasons for withdrawal and why not deposited full cash available in the cash book is not the proper reasons for the Assessing Officer to make addition. It is for the Assessing Officer to bring on record any contrary evidence that assessee has misused the funds available on the record. What is relevant is the source for the funds deposited in the bank account and assessee has proved that it has sufficient unutilised funds in the books. The availability of funds in the cash book supports the cash deposits in the bank. Therefore, Assessing Officer cannot go beyond the mandate unless he has contrary evidence. Therefore, we do not like to alter the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and it is not proper for Assessing Officer to apply preponderance of probity in this case. In our view, the case law relied by the Ld. DR are not relevant for the present case. Therefore, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed. Issues:- Appeal by Revenue against order of Ld.CIT(A) for A.Y. 2017-18- Disallowance of cash deposits made by assessee during demonetization periodAnalysis:1. The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of Ld.CIT(A) for the assessment year 2017-18. The case involved the disallowance of cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer observed that the cash deposits were made without a business rationale and disallowed them based on certain judgments.2. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had made significant cash deposits during demonetization. The assessee explained the source of these deposits, citing cash withdrawals and cash in hand. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed the deposits, questioning the rationale behind the withdrawals and non-utilization of cash.3. The Ld.CIT(A) allowed the ground raised by the assessee, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer's disallowance was based on inference and presumption. The Ld.CIT(A) considered the explanations provided by the assessee, noting that there was no material to suggest the funds were not available with the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) highlighted the legal requirement for proving the nature and source of income under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.4. The Revenue raised grounds in its appeal, challenging the deletion of the addition/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue argued that the onus was on the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits, which the assessee allegedly failed to discharge. The Revenue cited case laws and emphasized the importance of providing valid explanations for cash transactions.5. The Tribunal considered the submissions from both parties. It observed that the assessee had disclosed sufficient funds to justify the cash deposits made during demonetization. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not provide any evidence to dispute the availability of funds with the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the Assessing Officer to establish contrary evidence before making additions based on presumptions.6. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the order of the Ld.CIT(A). The Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer's decision to disallow the cash deposits lacked proper justification and that the case laws cited by the Revenue were not applicable to the present case. The Tribunal affirmed the deletion of the addition/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer.7. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of substantiating cash transactions, the burden of proof on the assessee under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, and the necessity for the Assessing Officer to provide concrete evidence before disallowing income based on presumptions.