Additions under section 68 read with 115BBE set aside where books were accepted and deposits plausibly shown as cash sales

ITAT held for the assessee, setting aside additions u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE concerning unexplained bank deposits. The Tribunal found the AO had accepted the assessee's books (also accepted in VAT) and neither rejected them nor identified defects; the assessee plausibly explained deposits as cash sales. AO and CIT(A) relied on conjecture without corroborative evidence or examination of buyers. Absent rejection of books or adequate material linking evidence to the addition, the assessment was held erroneous.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Legitimacy of cash deposits during the demonetization period.
2. Application of Section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.
3. Rejection of books of accounts and reliance on circumstantial evidence.

Summary:

1. Legitimacy of Cash Deposits During the Demonetization Period:
The primary issue was whether the cash deposits amounting to Rs. 1,37,95,040/- during the demonetization period were legitimate. The assessee claimed these deposits were from sales of jewelry, supported by books of accounts, purchase vouchers, sales invoices, stock registers, VAT records, and bank statements. The CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO), stating that the appellant brought in unaccounted cash by inflating sales at unusually high levels during the demonetization period. The Tribunal, however, noted that the extraordinary incident of demonetization was unique to the financial year 2016-17 and could not be the basis for rejecting accounts and making additions under Section 68.

2. Application of Section 68 Read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act:
The AO invoked Section 68 read with Section 115BBE, treating the cash deposits as unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal found that the assessee had explained the source of the deposits as sales and produced relevant documents. The Tribunal cited the case of ACIT Vs. Hirapanna Jewellers, where it was held that once the source is explained as sales and supported by books of accounts, there is no basis for treating the deposits as unexplained cash credits under Section 68.

3. Rejection of Books of Accounts and Reliance on Circumstantial Evidence:
The CIT(A) and AO relied on circumstantial evidence, such as the high volume of cash sales during the demonetization period and the invoices being below Rs. 2,00,000/-, to reject the assessee's claims. The Tribunal emphasized that the books of accounts were not rejected by the VAT authorities and were maintained in the normal course of business. It was noted that suspicion, however strong, should not lead to adverse conclusions without tangible evidence. The Tribunal highlighted that the AO did not find any defects in the books of accounts or stock registers and that the sales were duly recorded and matched with the stock position.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the lower authorities erred in upholding the addition under Section 68. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the stay application was dismissed as infructuous. The Tribunal emphasized the need for direct evidence rather than circumstantial evidence and underscored the importance of acting fairly and reasonably based on adequate material.

Order Pronounced:
The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 27/03/2023.

---