Partnership firm wins on cash deposits during demonetization and excessive interest on family loans under Section 68

ITAT Chennai held in favor of assessee partnership firm engaged in jewellery business on two issues. First, regarding cash deposits under Section 68 during demonetization period, tribunal found assessee discharged burden of proving source of abnormal sales by demonstrating public panic led to increased jewellery purchases as safe investment option. AO failed to disprove assessee's explanation with mere allegations and statistics. Second, on excessive interest payment of 21% on unsecured loans from family members, tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s deletion finding rate reasonable considering higher risk, convenience, and no collateral requirements compared to institutional loans. Both additions deleted, decided against revenue.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of cash deposits.
2. Disallowance of interest payments.

Summary:

1. Addition of Cash Deposits:

The Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s decision to allow cash sales in demonetized currency, arguing that the sales on 08/11/2016 were not backed by evidence such as CCTV footage and party-wise sales details. The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in the jewellery business, provided detailed records of cash deposits and sales, including a month-wise summary and daily cash summary for the relevant period. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the assessee's claim of abnormal sales on 08/11/2016, alleging that the cash deposits represented unaccounted money introduced during the demonetization period and added Rs. 766 Lacs u/s 69A, subject to tax u/s 115BBE.

The CIT(A) found that the assessee maintained proper books of accounts, which were audited u/s 44AB, and all sales were recorded and accepted by the Sales Tax/VAT Department. The CIT(A) held that there were no discrepancies in the books or stock records, and the AO's allegations were unsupported by concrete evidence. The CIT(A) concluded that the sales on 08/11/2016 were genuine and the cash deposits were sourced from these sales, thus deleting the addition made by the AO.

2. Disallowance of Interest Payments:

The AO disallowed excessive interest paid to unsecured loan creditors, restricting the interest rate to 12% from the claimed 21%, resulting in a disallowance of Rs. 274.11 Lacs u/s 40A(2)(b) r.w.s. 37. The CIT(A) deleted this disallowance, reasoning that loans from family members do not require collateral and carry higher risk, justifying a higher interest rate. The CIT(A) noted that similar interest rates were accepted in previous years without disallowance.

Appellate Tribunal's Findings:

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues. It found that the assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence to support the cash deposits and that the AO's suspicions were not substantiated by concrete evidence. The Tribunal also agreed with the CIT(A) that the higher interest rates on loans from family members were justified given the lack of collateral and higher risk involved. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.

Order Pronounced on 3rd April, 2024.

---