ITAT sets aside unexplained income addition under sections 69A and 115BBA for demonetisation cash deposits

ITAT Mumbai set aside CIT(A)'s order confirming addition of unexplained income under sections 69A and 115BBA for cash deposits during demonetisation. The assessee operated a bar and restaurant with claimed daily cash sales of 9,000 serving 32 dishes on 10 tables operating 365 days annually. ITAT held that when assessee provided detailed explanations of cash sales, deposits, and transactions supported by audit account books, AO cannot resort to estimation without proper examination. Matter remitted to AO for fresh adjudication after examining all documents and providing hearing opportunity. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues:
1. Assessment of unexplained income under section 69A and 115BBA
2. Addition of business income under section 44AD
3. Disallowance under section 40A(3)

Analysis:

Issue 1: Assessment of unexplained income under section 69A and 115BBA
The appellant, a hospitality company, challenged the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre regarding the assessment year 2017-18. The Income Tax Department identified the appellant as having deposited a significant amount of cash during demonetization but failing to file income tax returns. The Assessing Officer (AO) concluded that the appellant showed inflated sales figures to justify cash deposits during demonetization, treating the cash deposit as unexplained income under section 69A and taxing it under section 115BBA. The AO also assessed tax at a presumptive basis and disallowed certain expenses under section 40A(3), resulting in a total income assessment of Rs.28,31,040.

Issue 2: Addition of business income under section 44AD
The AO observed discrepancies in the appellant's cash sales and deposits, indicating irregular bookkeeping. Despite the appellant's submission of details, the AO and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not consider the return of income filed subsequently for the assessment year, raising concerns about the acceptance of the appellant's books of account. The appellant argued that its cash flow details and operational aspects were not adequately reviewed by the authorities, emphasizing the consistent cash balance and daily sales volume from the restaurant business.

Issue 3: Disallowance under section 40A(3)
The appellant contended that the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) overlooked crucial details such as the cash opening balance, deposit dates, and operational specifics of the restaurant business. The appellant's plea for a thorough examination of all submitted documents and accounts was supported by the Deputy Representative for the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, remitting the case back to the AO for a comprehensive review based on the available records and providing the appellant with a fair opportunity to present its case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a detailed examination of the appellant's accounts and documents by the AO to reach a logical conclusion, rather than relying on estimation and conjecture.

---