2024 (2) TMI 834 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Rules Cash Deposits During Demonetization Were Legitimate; Deletes Rs. 69,38,000 Addition for Lack of Evidence.

Rajan Gupta Versus ACIT, Circle-35 (1), Delhi

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee, concluding that the cash deposits made during the demonetization period were adequately ... Addition u/s 68 r.w.s.115BBE - cash deposit made during the demonetization period - HELD THAT:- It is fact on record that assessee had indeed made cash withdrawals in the month of October 2016 itself which is just a month prior to the announcement of demonization by the Govt. of India. Assessee also explained that the purpose of withdrawals cash was for the purpose of payment to his factory workers as there was labour unrest in his factory at the end of September 2016. The assessee had furnished week-wise cash sales of cash deposit made during the period 08.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 providing the details of opening cash in hand, cash withdrawals made from the bank, cash deposits made in the bank, cash sales made during the period and closing cash balance. In the instant case, the assessee had given proper explanation for withdrawal of cash in whole sums in the month of October, 2016 which evidently enabled him to hold huge cash balance to make cash deposit (i.e. during demonetization period). As stated earlier, similar cash deposit made by the assessee in the sum of Rs. 12 lakhs in July 2016 was also sourced out of cash balance available with the assessee in its books, which has been accepted by the revenue. From the perusal of the cash book, we find that there was absolutely no negative cash balance with the assessee on any single day. Once the cash book together with audited books of account and tax audit report filed by the assessee before the AO had not been rejected and once, there is sufficient cash balance available with the assessee to make cash deposit and the same are duly reflected in the books of account, there is no case for the revenue to hold that cash deposit were made out of undisclosed source of income of the assessee warranting any addition u/s 68. In any case, it is for the revenue to prove that the cash withdrawals made earlier had been utilized by the assessee for some other purposes and the same was not available with the assessee as a cash source to explain the cash deposits. Hence, we have no hesitation to delete the addition made towards unexplained cash deposits during demonetization period in the instant case - Assessee appeal allowed. Issues:The judgment involves the only issue of confirming the addition of Rs. 69,38,000/- made on account of cash deposit during the demonetization period by the assessee.Details of the Judgment:The appeal pertained to the assessment year 2017-18 and arose from the National Faceless Appeal Centre in Delhi against the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee, engaged in the manufacturing business, had filed the return of income declaring total income. The Assessing Officer observed cash deposits made by the assessee during demonetization and in July 2016. While the cash deposit in July 2016 was accepted, the one during demonetization was treated as income under the Income-tax Act. The assessee explained the cash withdrawals made prior to demonetization for payment to factory workers due to labor unrest. The demonetization announcement forced the assessee to deposit the available cash in the bank account. The assessee provided detailed cash flow statements and explanations for the cash deposits, showing no negative cash balance and sufficient sources for the deposits. The Tribunal found no undisclosed income and deleted the addition made by the revenue, allowing the appeal of the assessee.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the cash deposits were adequately explained by the assessee and were not from undisclosed sources, warranting no addition under the Income-tax Act. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed, and the appeal was granted in favor of the assessee.