Assessee fails to explain cash deposits during demonetization, case remitted for fresh adjudication under section 68

ITAT Raipur remitted the case back to AO for fresh adjudication regarding addition under section 68 for cash deposits during demonetization period. The assessee failed to substantiate cash receipts from sales and debtors with corroborative evidence, and could not explain mismatches in cash balances. While the tribunal noted deficiencies in books of accounts, it directed verification of closing/opening cash balances, sale bills, and impact on returned income before making final determination on unexplained cash credit addition.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 21,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Treatment of cash deposits during the demonetization period as unexplained cash credit.
3. Application of tax rate under Section 115BBE.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 21,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 21,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68, arguing that the cash deposits were from genuine sources reflected in the books of accounts. The AO observed discrepancies in the cash flow statements, specifically a difference in the closing cash balance for AY 2016-17 and the opening cash balance for AY 2017-18. The AO also noted an abnormal increase in cash deposits during the demonetization period compared to the average deposits before demonetization. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's addition, finding the cash flow statements unreliable and noting the assessee's failure to produce sales bills or evidence of receipts from debtors.

2. Treatment of Cash Deposits During the Demonetization Period as Unexplained Cash Credit:
The AO treated the cash deposits during the demonetization period as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, citing the assessee's failure to substantiate the source of cash deposits. The assessee argued that the cash deposits were from sales and receipts from debtors, which were recorded in the books of accounts. The CIT(A) found the assessee's explanations insufficient, noting discrepancies in the cash flow statements and the lack of supporting evidence for the claimed sales and receipts from debtors.

3. Application of Tax Rate Under Section 115BBE:
The assessee contested the application of the 60% tax rate under Section 115BBE, arguing that the transactions occurred before the amendment to Section 115BBE, which increased the tax rate from 30% to 60%. The assessee contended that the higher tax rate should not apply retrospectively to transactions made before the amendment date. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's application of the 60% tax rate, finding the addition justified under Section 68.

Decision and Analysis:
The Tribunal noted that the AO made the addition based on abnormal cash deposits during the demonetization period and discrepancies in the cash flow statements. The AO and CIT(A) observed that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of cash deposits with supporting evidence. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's argument that the books of accounts were accepted by the department, and the sales were reflected in the VAT returns. However, the Tribunal found that the discrepancies in the cash flow statements and the lack of evidence for the claimed sales and receipts from debtors warranted further verification.

The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for verification of the closing and opening cash balances, sales bills, and the impact of cash collected from debtors on the returned income. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-adjudicate the issue afresh, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, remitting the main issue and the consequential tax rate issue back to the AO for further verification and re-adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the assessee to assist vigilantly in the set-aside proceedings.

---