2025 (3) TMI 1551 - AT - Income Tax

Demonetization cash deposits accepted as genuine sales, unexplained credit addition deleted; s. 80JJAA employment deduction sustained

ACIT, CC-5 Versus M/s Shiv Naresh Sports Private Limited

ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal. Relying on Agson Global precedent of Del HC, it held that cash deposits during the demonetization period were ... Cash deposit made by the assessee during the demonetization period - Addition of unexplained credit - HELD THAT:- As in the case of PCIT Vs. Agson Global (P) Ltd. [2022 (1) TMI 848 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein on an identical situation where addition on account of cash deposit in bank during demonetization period was made, the Court held that such cash deposit corresponded with cash sales increase in sales percentage terms for financial year 2016-17 when the demonetization took place was though less than the earlier year. Cash deposit in bank was more or less comparable with cash sale transaction. Further that the GP ratio for financial year 2016-17 was in line with the earlier years. Further that based on the books of account furnished by the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18 it is not the case of the revenue that the assessee purchased or sold goods to any identified parties. Thus, there is nothing to conclude that the assessee had booked non existing sales in its books post demonetization and had deposited cash in bank unrepresented by cash sales - Addition to be deleted - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of deduction u/s 80JJAA - Form 10DA was not filed by the assessee along with return so filed for AY 2016-17 and Form 10DA for AY 2017-18 was not correctly filed - CIT(A) allowed deduction - HELD THAT:- CIT (A) considering the facts of the matter supported by the document so filed by the assessee before the authorities below found that Form 10DA for AY 2017-18 was filed through electronic media on 26.10.2017 i.e. before filing of the return on 30.10.2017 and thus the condition of filing of Form 10DA along with ITR is satisfied. Newly amended Section effective from AY 2017-18 changed the definition and condition for counting the number of eligible employees. Inference drawn by the AO in regard to the difference in number of workmen at the end of the preceding previous year in form 10DA for AY 2017-18 is also found to be incorrect. Also the assessee had furnished to AO an exhaustive list of 9 additional employees in respect of which deduction u/s 80JJAA was claimed. Moreover, the deduction u/s 80JJAA for AY 2016-17 have already been allowed in the appellant proceedings for AY 2016-17 which have attained finality. Order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) upon deletion of addition made by the AO upon disallowance of deduction under Section 80JJAA is, thus, found to be just and proper so as not to warrant interference.- Decided in favour of assessee. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether cash deposits of Rs. 2,22,94,000/- made during the demonetisation period, when recorded in the assessee's books as sales and credited to the profit & loss account, can be treated as unexplained credits under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE where the Assessing Officer contends deposits are not in tune with prior cash-deposit patterns. 2. Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in disallowing deduction under Section 80JJAA of the Income Tax Act for Rs. 18,57,092/- on the ground that Form 10DA was not filed along with the return or was not correctly filed, and in disputing the count of eligible employees for the deduction. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Treating demonetisation-period cash deposits as unexplained credits under Section 68 (and related invocation of Section 115BBE) Legal framework - Section 68: burden on assessee to explain nature and source of unexplained cash credits in the books; if not explained to AO's satisfaction, amount may be added as income. - Section 145(3) and Section 144: where AO is not satisfied with correctness/completeness of books, assessment may be framed under Section 144; rejection of books justifies special treatment. - Section 115BBE: referenced in the assessment/addition but main factual/ legal question is whether Section 68 addition is sustainable where amounts are recorded as sales and admitted to profit & loss account. Precedent treatment (followed/distinguished/overruled) - The Tribunal accepted and relied upon the reasoning in a High Court decision addressing identical facts (deposits during demonetisation) which held that cash deposits corresponding with recorded cash sales and consistent GP ratios do not warrant Section 68 additions; that precedent was followed. Interpretation and reasoning - The Tribunal examined whether AO had rejected or doubted the correctness/completeness of the books. AO did not reject books, did not frame assessment under Section 144, and did not point to any specific defect or error in cash book, stock register, purchases or recorded expenditure. - Accounting and transactional consistency: comparative analysis showed total sales and cash-sale percentages for FY 2016-17 were broadly consistent with FY 2015-16; gross profit and net profit ratios for FY 2016-17 were similar to FY 2015-16. - Cash-expense dynamics explained: cash expenses in FY 2016-17 were lower than prior year while overall expenses remained similar due to increased cheque-component - consistent with behaviour expected during demonetisation. - Demonetisation as an extraordinary event: exceptional requirement to deposit cash in banks when legal tender status withdrew meant deviation from prior deposit patterns could be explained legitimately; absence of need to deposit large cash balances in normal years renders pattern-comparison with earlier periods less probative. - Documentary compliance: assessee furnished VAT returns, month-wise cash-sales and cash-expense details, cash withdrawals, cash deposits and salary/wages records; AO drew no adverse inference or specific material to rebut these records. - Double taxation concern: addition under Section 68 of amounts already recorded as sales and credited to profit & loss would result in duplication of tax on the same amount (tantamount to double taxation) if sustained without valid reason. Ratio vs. Obiter - Ratio: Where books of account are maintained, audited, not rejected and no specific defect is pointed out, and (a) cash deposits during demonetisation correspond with recorded cash sales and consistent profit ratios, and (b) documentary evidence (VAT returns, month-wise details) supports the sales, AO cannot treat such bank deposits as unexplained credits under Section 68; addition would be unsustainable and may result in double taxation. - Obiter: Observations on practical difficulties of depositing cash only at home-branch during demonetisation and general commentary on the exceptional nature of demonetisation are explanatory but ancillary to the binding ratio. Conclusions - The addition of Rs. 2,22,94,000/- as unexplained credit under Section 68 r.w.s 115BBE was deleted. The Tribunal affirmed that the AO's reliance on deviation from earlier cash-deposit patterns was incorrect in light of demonetisation and the absence of any rejection of books or specific material demonstrating fabricated sales. Issue 2: Disallowance of deduction under Section 80JJAA for non-filing/incorrect filing of Form 10DA and dispute over eligible employees Legal framework - Section 80JJAA: provides deduction in respect of employment of new regular workmen subject to statutory conditions, including prescribed filing requirements (Form 10DA) and documentary records demonstrating eligibility. - Procedural condition: Form 10DA must be filed as required for claiming deduction; amendments effective from AY 2017-18 altered definitions/conditions relevant to counting eligible employees. Precedent treatment (followed/distinguished/overruled) - No contrary precedent was cited to displace the factual finding that the form was filed electronically before the return and that prior year allowance had attained finality; the Tribunal accepted the administrative filing-compliance evidence as satisfactory. Interpretation and reasoning - Filing timeline and method: Form 10DA for AY 2017-18 was filed electronically on 26.10.2017, prior to filing of return on 30.10.2017; thus the condition of filing 'along with' the return was satisfied in substance. - Amendment-effect on employee-count: statutory amendments for AY 2017-18 changed the method/definition for counting eligible employees; AO's inference on discrepancy in number of workmen in Form 10DA (relative to prior periods) was incorrect because it did not account for amended definitions/conditions. - Supporting documentation: assessee furnished an exhaustive list of nine additional employees for whom deduction was claimed; deduction for AY 2016-17 had been allowed and had attained finality, supporting continuity and consistency of claim. Ratio vs. Obiter - Ratio: Where Form 10DA is filed electronically prior to filing of the return and the statutory conditions (including revised definitions for counting employees) are met or properly evidenced, the AO's mechanical disallowance on the basis of technical non-filing or an asserted discrepancy in employee count is untenable; in such circumstances deletion of disallowance is justified. - Obiter: Detailed commentary on the correctness of AO's application of pre-amendment semantics to post-amendment claims is explanatory to the decision but ancillary to the operative finding. Conclusions - The disallowance of Rs. 18,57,092/- under Section 80JJAA was deleted. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings that Form 10DA was filed electronically before the return, statutory amendments applicable to AY 2017-18 alter the employee-count analysis, supporting documentation was furnished, and prior-year allowance had attained finality. Overall Conclusion - Both impugned additions-(i) unexplained cash credits of Rs. 2,22,94,000/- under Section 68 r.w.s 115BBE and (ii) disallowance of Section 80JJAA deduction of Rs. 18,57,092/--were found unsustainable and were deleted; the revenue's appeal was dismissed.