Cash deposits during demonetization not taxable as unexplained money when recorded sales; addition u/s 69A deleted

ITAT Kolkata allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting addition made u/s 69A in respect of cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Tribunal held that the assessee's cash deposits were duly reflected in the regularly maintained books as cash sales from saree trading, which the AO had neither rejected nor doubted. Invoking s. 69A was held legally untenable because the provision applies to unexplained money not recorded in books. Further, treating recorded cash sales as unexplained money would lead to impermissible double addition-once as business sales and again as unexplained cash u/s 69A. Consequently, the assessment order was held unsustainable in law.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether cash deposits made during the demonetization period, sourced from cash sales duly recorded in the books of account, could be treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act.

1.2 Whether addition of cash deposits representing recorded cash sales would result in impermissible double taxation of the same income.

1.3 Whether the invocation of section 69A read with section 115BBE was legally sustainable where the assessee's books of account were neither rejected nor the sales disbelieved.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Applicability of section 69A to cash deposits arising from recorded cash sales

Legal framework

2.1 The Tribunal extracted and considered section 69A, noting that it applies where the assessee is found to be the owner of money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article which is not recorded in the books of account, and for which no satisfactory explanation regarding nature and source is offered.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.2 The Court found as an undisputed fact that the assessee was engaged in trading of sarees, had maintained books of account, and had recorded all cash purchases and sales therein.

2.3 It was noted that the Assessing Officer himself accepted that the cash deposited in the bank during the demonetization period came out of the cash book and did not reject the books of account nor specifically doubt or disbelieve the sales.

2.4 The Tribunal held that section 69A, by its express terms, applies only to money etc. "not recorded in the books of account", whereas in the present case the cash represented sale proceeds duly accounted for in the regularly maintained books.

2.5 Relying on the coordinate bench decision in JMK Exports, the Tribunal emphasized that when transactions are duly recorded in the books, provisions dealing with unexplained money/investments like section 69A are not attracted at the threshold.

2.6 The Tribunal also noted that once the assessment authority has proceeded on the basis that entries are recorded business transactions, the character of such amounts cannot subsequently be altered into unexplained money under section 69A without satisfying the statutory conditions.

Conclusions

2.7 The Court concluded that the statutory precondition for invoking section 69A was absent, as the cash in question was duly recorded in the books of account as cash sales; therefore, the addition under section 69A was legally unsustainable.

2.8 Consequently, the consequential application of section 115BBE to such addition also failed.

Issue 2: Double taxation arising from addition of cash deposits representing accepted sales

Interpretation and reasoning

2.9 The Tribunal observed that the assessee's gross sales, including cash sales during the demonetization period, were recorded and the resultant business profit had already been offered to tax.

2.10 The Assessing Officer did not reject the books, did not disturb the trading results, and did not disallow or reduce the declared sales, but nonetheless added the same cash amount again under section 69A on the premise that the story of business was not believable.

2.11 The Court held that once sales are accepted and taxed through the profit and loss account, treating the corresponding cash receipts again as unexplained money results in "double addition" or double taxation of the same income, which is not permissible under the Act.

2.12 In support, the Tribunal relied on the coordinate bench decision in ITO v. Joydeb Kundu, which had held that treating cash sale proceeds as unexplained cash under section 69A, after already assessing the sales as business income, violates the principles of taxation by taxing the same amount twice.

Conclusions

2.13 The Court concluded that the addition of cash deposits representing already-taxed cash sales amounted to impermissible double taxation, furnishing a substantive ground to delete the addition.

Issue 3: Legality of sustaining the addition by characterization under section 69A read with section 115BBE when books/sales are accepted

Interpretation and reasoning

2.14 The Tribunal noted the argument that even if an addition is made under a wrong section, it cannot be recharacterized under a different provision at the appellate stage without satisfying the distinct statutory conditions and without proper opportunity to the assessee.

2.15 Referring to the reasoning in JMK Exports, the Tribunal reiterated that sections like 68 and 69/69A operate in different situations, and a new legal basis (such as unexplained money/investment) cannot be introduced where the factual premise is that the transactions are duly recorded business entries.

2.16 In the present case, the assessment itself proceeded on the basis that the amounts were recorded in books as sales, and no separate material was brought to show any unrecorded money; therefore, characterization as unexplained money under section 69A was inconsistent with the accepted factual matrix.

Conclusions

2.17 The Court held that the Assessing Officer had wrongly invoked section 69A by misinterpreting the provision and overlooking the admitted fact that the deposits emanated from recorded business transactions.

2.18 On combined grounds-incorrect invocation of section 69A and resultant double taxation-the Tribunal set aside the order of the appellate authority and directed deletion of the entire addition made under section 69A read with section 115BBE.

---