Revenue's appeal dismissed as cash deposits during demonetization adequately explained through bank statements and cash book under section 68

ITAT Chennai dismissed revenue's appeal regarding unexplained cash credit under section 68 read with section 115BBE. The appellant deposited cash during demonetization period but adequately explained the source through bank statements and cash book showing sufficient prior withdrawals from the same account. The cash balance as per books on 08.11.2016 exceeded the deposited amount. ITAT found the explanation that cash deposits originated from legitimate sales proceeds and previous withdrawals to be bona fide and reasonable. CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld, following precedent in Sahana Jewellery Exports case.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Assessment of cash deposits during the demonetization period.
3. Applicability of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
4. Validity of the Assessing Officer's findings and the CIT(A)'s decision.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appeal was filed with a delay of 136 days. The Assessing Officer (AO) attributed the delay to a technical glitch in the ITBA portal, which prevented the order from being downloaded until 31.03.2023, and the AO's preoccupation with time-barring assessments. The delay was not intentional or for wanton benefit. Both parties agreed to condone the delay. The tribunal found the reasons reasonable and condoned the delay in the interest of substantial justice.

2. Assessment of Cash Deposits During the Demonetization Period:
The assessee, engaged in the business of trading in gold jewelry and bullion, deposited Rs. 90,80,86,500/- during the demonetization period. The source of these deposits was claimed to be from:
- Opening cash in hand as on 08.11.2016: Rs. 90,75,10,005/-.
- Cash withdrawals from the bank before demonetization: Rs. 39,33,30,165/-.
- Direct cash sales: Rs. 15,58,58,464/-.
- Advances received from customers for a gold scheme: Rs. 32,43,85,989/-.

The AO issued summons and notices to verify the claims, which were returned unserved or received non-cooperative responses. The AO concluded that the assessee failed to prove the receipt of trade advances and made additions of Rs. 90,80,86,500/- as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Act.

3. Applicability of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act:
The CIT(A) opined that trade advances, subsequently converted into sales and accounted for in the books, cannot be treated as cash credits under Section 68. The CIT(A) noted that the AO did not find any discrepancies in the books of accounts, stock registers, or sales and purchases. The CIT(A) relied on judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT, which held that if the books of accounts are accepted and there is sufficient cash balance, the entries must be considered genuine.

4. Validity of the Assessing Officer's Findings and the CIT(A)'s Decision:
The CIT(A) found that the AO's assessment was based on suspicion and lacked proper enquiry. The AO failed to consider the sufficient cash balance and the genuine business transactions recorded in the books. The CIT(A) highlighted that the AO accepted cash deposits for other periods but not for the demonetization period, showing inconsistency. The CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the additions, citing that the same income cannot be taxed twice.

The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the source of cash deposits with proper documentation and that the AO's findings were based on suspicion without concrete evidence. The tribunal also referenced similar cases where courts ruled in favor of the assessee under comparable circumstances, reinforcing the CIT(A)'s conclusions.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the assessee had adequately explained the source of cash deposits during the demonetization period. The tribunal found that the AO's additions under Section 68 were unwarranted and based on suspicion rather than substantive evidence.

---