Assessee's demonetization-era bank cash deposits not taxable under s.68 where audited records and buyer confirmations supported sales

ITAT held for the assessee that additions under s.68 for bank cash deposits during demonetization were unjustified. The assessee maintained audited books, produced sale invoices, purchase bills, stock registers and day-wise stock reports showing corresponding outflow of inventory, filed Form 61A and obtained confirmations from purchasers. The AO did not identify discrepancies in stock or abnormal profits, nor could he validly disbelieve recorded purchases merely because third parties did not disclose their own fund sources. Consequently, the cash deposits linked to accounted cash sales could not be treated as undisclosed income.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Deletion of addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Justification of cash deposits during the demonetization period.
3. Reliance on VAT returns for the genuineness of sales.
4. Application of tax rate under Section 115BBE.

Summary:

1. Deletion of Addition under Section 68:

The Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 2,57,59,680/- made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that there was an unusual and abnormal cash deposit in November 2016, during the demonetization period, which was not substantiated by the assessee. The AO concluded that cash sales to identifiable persons without PAN and unidentifiable persons were non-genuine. However, the CIT(A) deleted the addition, observing that the assessee maintained regular books of accounts, produced contemporaneous documentation, and demonstrated a direct correlation between cash outflow and cash deposits. The CIT(A) also noted that the AO did not find any discrepancies in the sales bills, sales register, or stock statements.

2. Justification of Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period:

The AO argued that the assessee showed inflated cash sales and made abnormal cash deposits immediately after demonetization, which could not be substantiated. The assessee, however, provided detailed explanations, maintained regular books of accounts, and demonstrated that the cash deposits were directly linked to sales duly disclosed in the books. The Tribunal found that the AO did not reject the sales or the quantity of purchase stock and sales, and there was no discrepancy in the sales bills, sales register, purchases, and stock. Therefore, the cash deposits could not be treated as undisclosed income.

3. Reliance on VAT Returns for Genuineness of Sales:

The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in relying on sales declared in VAT returns to conclude that cash deposited during the demonetization period corresponded to sales. The CIT(A) observed that the sales declared under the Maharashtra VAT Act and the VAT return completely tallied with the sales shown in the books of accounts. The Tribunal upheld this view, noting that the AO did not point out any discrepancies in the VAT returns or the sales records.

4. Application of Tax Rate under Section 115BBE:

The assessee argued that the AO erred in imposing tax at 60% under Section 115BBE instead of 30%, as the cash deposits took place before the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 came into force. The CIT(A) held that since the addition under Section 68 was deleted, the issue of invoking Section 115BBE became infructuous. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the entire addition under Section 68 was deleted, making the application of Section 115BBE irrelevant.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, as well as the cross-objection of the assessee, as infructuous. The Tribunal held that the cash deposits during the demonetization period were substantiated by the assessee through regular books of accounts, sales records, and VAT returns, and there was no justification for treating the deposits as undisclosed income.

---