2023 (4) TMI 1210 - AT - Income Tax

Supreme Court eases appeal filing due to pandemic, reduces addition of cash deposits, upholds assessee's objections.

The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing appeals and cross objections due to the pandemic. Assessing Officer's addition of unexplained cash deposits ... Addition u/s 68 and 69A - assessee failed to establish the creditworthiness of the M/s. Royal Home Constructions and the genuineness of transaction of the Refundable Fidelity Guarantee as per the development agreement - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- As it is well established and the fact of non-service of notice on M/s. Royal Home Constructions or M/s. Royal Home Constructions not filing the returns from assessment year 2013-14 is of no consequence on this issue. It was open for the learned Assessing Officer to inform the said fact to the learned Assessing Officer of M/s. Royal Home Constructions for further action on that aspect. But that cannot be a ground to penalise the assessee. Entries in the bank account of the assessee towards refundable fidelity guarantee amount received from M/s. Royal Home Constructions are well supported by the statement of the Managing Partner of M/s. Royal Home Constructions, his affidavit, his confirmation letter, bank statement and the abstract of withdrawals from the account. Revenue does not show any reason as to how the CIT(A) was wrong in holding that by producing the copy of the Development Agreement and Deed of Infrastructure Development Agreement Managing Partner of M/s. Royal Home Constructions, his affidavit, his confirmation letter, bank statement and the abstract of withdrawals from the account the assessee discharged the onus of establishing the creditworthiness of M/s. Royal Home Constructions or the genuineness of the transaction. We are in agreement with theCIT(A) that when once the Managing Partner of M/s. Royal Home Constructions was produced and he confirmed the agreements and the payments and such confirmation is well supported by the bank statement with Axis Bank where the funds available and the withdrawals were sufficient to meet the obligations under the Development Agreement the assessee stands discharged of his burden to establish the creditworthiness of M/s. Royal Home Constructions and the genuineness of transaction. The closure of office of M/s. Royal Home Constructions for any period or M/s. Royal Home Constructions not maintaining any accounts is of no consequence in this matter. There is nothing illegality or irregularity in the findings of the learned CIT(A) and accordingly we decline to interfere with his such findings. CIT(A) is right in deleting the addition u/s 69A and u/s 68 and such findings do not warrant any interference. Appeal is found to be devoid of merits. Addition of agricultural income - assessee made IDS declaration - HELD THAT:- Nothing contrary is brought to our notice on behalf of the Revenue and the IDS declaration and the declaration of agricultural income by the assessee in the return of income are all borne by record. It is also not in dispute that the case of the assessee falls within the permissible categories of un-disclosed income under IDS vide 183(1)(c) of the Finance Act, 2016. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the findings of the learned CIT(A) on this aspect and dismiss the relevant grounds of appeal and allow the ground in cross objection of the assessee. Addition u/s 69A - CIT(A) on a perusal of the bank statement of the assessee found that the deposited a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs on 23/09/2014, withdrew the same on the same day, again deposited it on 24/09/2014 and withdrew the same on the same day, which phenomenon recurred on 25/09/2014 and 26/09/2014 also - HELD THAT:- On this aspect also, there is no denial of the deposits and withdrawals. Further, such a fact was verified by the AO also and admitted in the remand report. Learned CIT(A) is, therefore, quite justified in accepting the same and deleting the addition. We confirm the same and dismiss the grounds of appeal and allow the ground in cross objection of the assessee. Issues Involved:1. Delay in filing appeals and cross objections.2. Addition of unexplained cash deposit under Section 69A of the Act.3. Addition of Rs. 2.35 crores under Section 68 of the Act.4. Additions for the assessment year 2015-16.Summary:Issue 1: Delay in Filing Appeals and Cross ObjectionsThe appeals and cross objections were filed with a delay attributed to the pandemic. The Supreme Court's order in M.A.No. 21/2022 extended the limitation period, thus condoning the delay in the Revenue's appeal. The delay in the assessee's cross objection was also condoned as the explanation provided was accepted.Issue 2: Addition of Unexplained Cash Deposit Under Section 69A of the ActThe assessee, Managing Director of M/s. Lampex Electronics Ltd., did not file his return for the assessment year 2014-15 but declared an income of Rs. 17,01,920/- after a notice under Section 148. The Assessing Officer found unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 1,00,53,000/- in the assessee's bank accounts. The CIT(A) reappraised the material and concluded that only Rs. 5,21,199/- remained unexplained. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, noting that the Assessing Officer failed to verify the details provided by the assessee.Issue 3: Addition of Rs. 2.35 Crores Under Section 68 of the ActThe Assessing Officer added Rs. 2.35 crores received from M/s. Royal Home Constructions, questioning the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. The CIT(A) found that the assessee satisfactorily discharged the onus by providing necessary documents, including confirmation letters, affidavits, and bank statements. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee had established the creditworthiness of M/s. Royal Home Constructions and the genuineness of the transaction.Issue 4: Additions for the Assessment Year 2015-16Three additions were contested:1. Refundable Fidelity Guarantee Amount: The facts were identical to the previous year, and the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.2. Agricultural Income of Rs. 28.5 Lakhs: The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's IDS declaration, which included the agricultural income. The Tribunal upheld this finding.3. Unexplained Cash Deposits of Rs. 5 Lakhs: The CIT(A) found that the deposits were explained by corresponding withdrawals. The Tribunal confirmed this finding.ConclusionThe Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and allowed the assessee's cross objections for both assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16. The order was pronounced on April 26, 2023.