Cash deposits claimed as recorded sales proceeds during demonetisation-addition u/s68/s.69A deleted for lack of reasons

Whether cash deposits in the bank could be assessed as unexplained money under s.69A/s.68 despite the assessee's claim that they represented recorded sale proceeds was the dominant issue. The Tribunal held that the AO gave no reasons for rejecting the explanation, did not dispute purchases, sales, stock or cash-in-hand, and pointed out no defects in the audited books nor rejected the books of account. In these circumstances, cash deposits could not be treated as unexplained merely on suspicion; even otherwise, higher cash sales during demonetisation cannot alone justify an addition when entries reconcile with stock and books. Consequently, the addition made under s.68 (recast as s.69A by the CIT(A)) was deleted and the assessee's appeal was allowed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether cash deposits in the bank could be sustained as "unexplained money" when the assessee explained them as arising from recorded sale proceeds, and the Assessing Officer neither rejected the audited books of account nor pointed out defects or disputed purchases, sales, stock, or cash in hand.

(ii) Whether, on the facts of the case, the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 (and sustained by the first appellate authority by treating it under section 69A) could be sustained in the absence of reasons for rejecting the assessee's explanation.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Sustainability of treating cash deposits as "unexplained money" despite explanation of sale proceeds

Legal framework (as reflected in the decision): The Court examined the addition as one made for "unexplained money" in respect of cash deposits, in the context that the Assessing Officer proceeded on section 68 and the first appellate authority treated it as section 69A.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the Assessing Officer did not provide reasons for rejecting the assessee's explanation that the cash deposits were made out of sale proceeds. It was specifically noted that the Assessing Officer neither disputed the purchases, sales, and stocks, nor pointed out any defects in the audited books of account. The Court treated the non-rejection of books and absence of identified defects, coupled with the non-dispute of trading results and cash position, as fatal to sustaining an inference that the cash deposits represented unexplained money. The Court further observed that it was not even the Assessing Officer's case that the ratio of cash deposits vis-à-vis cash sales was unusually higher, and nothing was stated as to why the explanation was rejected.

Conclusion: In the absence of rejection of books of account, without any defects being pointed out, and without disputing purchases, sales, stock, or cash in hand, the Court held there was no justification to treat the cash deposits as unexplained money. The addition was directed to be deleted.

Issue (ii): Sustainability of the addition made under section 68 and treated as under section 69A by the first appellate authority

Legal framework (as reflected in the decision): The Court evaluated the addition originally made under section 68 and sustained by treating it as an addition under section 69A.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court's decisive reasoning was that the Assessing Officer failed to record any reasons for rejecting the assessee's explanation and failed to identify defects in the audited books or dispute the underlying business records (purchases, sales, stock, cash in hand). Given these factual deficiencies, the Court held that the addition-whether labelled under section 68 or treated as section 69A-could not stand. The Court thus set aside the sustained addition on merits, based on lack of justification and absence of supportive findings in the assessment order.

Conclusion: The addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 and treated as under section 69A by the first appellate authority was held unsustainable on the facts and was ordered to be deleted. The assessee's grounds were allowed.

---