2024 (11) TMI 1190 - AT - Income Tax

Demonetization cash deposits allowed when properly documented, salary payments to relatives disallowed without employment proof

ACIT, Circle 22 (2), New Delhi Versus Samvardhan Marketing Pvt. Ltd.

ACIT, Circle 22 (2), New Delhi Versus Samvardhan Marketing Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Addition under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act for unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period.2. Disallowance of salary expenses under Section 37(1) for payments made to related parties.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Addition under Section 68 for Unexplained Cash Deposits:The Revenue filed an appeal against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 12,55,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act. The AO had observed significant cash deposits during the demonetization period and questioned the genuineness of the transactions. The AO noted discrepancies in cash sales and deposits, particularly during the demonetization period, and argued that the cash deposits were disproportionately high compared to cash sales. The AO also highlighted the improbability of maintaining a large cash balance on hand and the scarcity of cash flow during demonetization.The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] reversed this addition, noting that a survey conducted post-demonetization found no discrepancies in the assessee's books of accounts or stock records. The CIT(A) emphasized that the AO did not reject the books of accounts and that the business nature involved substantial cash transactions. The CIT(A) also pointed out that the cash deposits during the demonetization period were significantly lower than in the previous year, supporting the assessee's claim of regular cash sales. The CIT(A) concluded that the AO's comparison of cash sales and deposits was irrelevant without finding discrepancies in the books of accounts. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO's observations were not aligned with the legal provisions regarding demonetization and cash handling.2. Disallowance of Salary Expenses to Related Parties:The AO disallowed Rs. 1,06,80,000/- claimed as salary expenses, questioning the payments made to related parties, including the Director's brother, sister-in-law, and wife. The AO argued that the assessee failed to provide evidence of services rendered by these individuals and their benefit to the business.The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, stating that the AO was informed about the nature of services provided by the related parties. The CIT(A) noted that the Director's brother was a key employee with a history of high salary accepted by the department, and the related parties were qualified and had been long-term employees. The CIT(A) found no evidence of income diversion and ruled that the assessee had the right to determine salary payments based on business benefits.The Tribunal partially agreed with the CIT(A), accepting the salary disallowance reversal for the Director's brother due to his key role and consistent income declarations. However, it sustained the disallowance for the sister-in-law and wife due to a lack of evidence of employment and service rendering.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on the addition under Section 68, dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this ground. It partially upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on salary expenses, allowing the appeal for the Director's brother but sustaining the disallowance for the sister-in-law and wife. The Revenue's appeal was thus partly allowed.