2024 (7) TMI 1602 - AT - Income Tax

Deletion of Section 68 addition upheld for legitimate cash deposits from fireworks sales during demonetization period

M/s. Sonny Fireworks Pvt. Ltd. Versus The DCIT, Corporate Circle-2, Madurai

The ITAT Chennai allowed the assessee's appeal and directed deletion of addition under Section 68. The AO had made the addition solely because the ... Addition u/s 68 - Specified Bank Notes/SBN deposited during demonetization period - only reason given by the AO to make addition u/s. 68 was that assessee could not have transacted/received SBNs during demonetization period and relies on the notification dated 08.11.2016 by Government of India - HELD THAT:- In this case, we have gone through the analysis furnished by the assessee in respect of total sales, cash sales realization from debtors and cash deposits during financial year 2015-16 & 2016-17, there is no significant change in cash deposits during demonetization period. When there is no significant change in cash deposits during demonetization period, then merely for the reason that the assessee has accepted specified bank notes in violation of circulation/notification issued by Government of India and RBI, the source explained for cash deposits cannot be countenanced. As noted that the assessee has given all the financials for the earlier years and subsequent years and the chart supra shows that deposits of SBNs cannot be said to be comparatively suspicious. We also note from the financials filed by the assessee that assessee had enough stock of the fireworks to sale same to the customers on credit during the Diwali Festival i.e. 30.10.2016. Thus, we find that the assessee had sufficient stock as on 30.10.2016 (Diwali period) for sale of the goods which generated amountto be deposited during the demonetization period and there are no defects in the stock registers. Every purchase and sale matches with inflow and outflow of the stock and as assessee has placed on record that the purchased goods have already inflicted with VAT/Sales Tax and the AO has not found any infirmity in the books of accounts of the assessee. Therefore, we direct the deletion of addition - Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core issue considered in this judgment is whether the addition of Rs. 3,09,37,567/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assessing Officer (AO) was justified. This addition was made on the grounds that the Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) deposited by the assessee during the demonetization period were not satisfactorily explained in terms of their nature and source.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents:Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provides that if any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee and the assessee fails to offer a satisfactory explanation about the nature and source thereof, the sum may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee. The judgment references the Supreme Court decision in Sreelekha Banerjee & Ors. v. CIT, which emphasizes that the department cannot unreasonably reject a plausible explanation provided by the assessee.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:The Tribunal examined whether the assessee's explanation regarding the source of the SBN deposits was plausible and whether the AO had any material to rebut this explanation. The Tribunal found that the assessee had adequately explained the source of the SBNs as trade receipts from the sale of fireworks during the Diwali festival, which occurred shortly before the demonetization announcement.Key Evidence and Findings:The assessee provided comprehensive evidence, including audited financials, profit and loss accounts, balance sheets, and details of 773 customers who deposited cash. The assessee also submitted PAN details for 394 customers, VAT/Sales Tax numbers for 223 customers, and addresses for 156 unregistered dealers. The AO did not find any discrepancies in the assessee's books of accounts or the explanation provided.Application of Law to Facts:The Tribunal applied the principles from Section 68, noting that the assessee had discharged its burden of proof by providing a plausible explanation for the cash deposits. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO's rejection of the explanation was based on conjecture and lacked substantial evidence.Treatment of Competing Arguments:The AO argued that the SBNs could not be accepted after demonetization and thus treated the deposits as unexplained income. However, the Tribunal countered that the AO failed to conduct a thorough inquiry into the veracity of the transactions and the explanation provided by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not dispute the sales figures or the stock available for sale during the relevant period.Conclusions:The Tribunal concluded that the AO's addition of Rs. 3,09,37,567/- under Section 68 was not justified. The explanation provided by the assessee was plausible, and the AO did not have sufficient grounds to reject it. The addition would result in double taxation, as the income was already accounted for in the assessee's books.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning:'It is settled position of law that when the assessee has given an explanation regarding the source of the credit/currency, which is plausible/probable from a prudent person's point of view, then, it cannot be rejected by the AO without having any material to rebut the plausible explanation given by the assessee.'Core Principles Established:The judgment reinforces the principle that an assessee's explanation for cash deposits must be accepted if it is plausible and supported by evidence, unless the AO can provide substantial contrary evidence. The judgment also underscores that double taxation of the same income is against the fundamental principles of taxation.Final Determinations on Each Issue:The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 3,09,37,567/-. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, as the Tribunal found that the AO's addition under Section 68 was not legally sustainable.