2025 (1) TMI 1272 - AT - Income Tax

Additions under Section 69A deleted; Section 115BBE tax applicability rejected as sales records and stock supported transactions

M/s R.M. Sales Corporation Versus Income Tax Officer Ward-2 (3), Jalandhar

ITAT (Amritsar) held that additions under section 69A were unjustified and deleted them, finding sales recorded in regular books accepted by VAT ... Addition u/s 69A - cash deposited in bank account out of sale proceeds which stood recorded in the books of account and credited to profit & loss account - HELD THAT:- Sales made by the assessee and shown in the regular books of account have been accepted as such by VAT authorities while framing the VAT assessment; that the assessee was having sufficient stock in hand for making the impugned sales during the demonetization period and that it is not the case of the AO that the assessee has shown bogus purchases to show bogus sales to cover up cash deposited during the demonetization period. We hold that the CIT(A) decision in infirm and perverse to the facts on record in confirming the addition u/s 69A. Accordingly, the addition made by invoking provisions of section 69A of the Act is held to be illegal and bad in law and as such, same is deleted. Applicability of the tax rate as per provisions of section 115BBE also stand rejected, accordingly. Decided in favour of assessee. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary issue in this case revolves around the addition of Rs. 57,32,048/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period. The appellant challenges this addition on several grounds:Whether the cash deposits, recorded in the books of accounts as sales, can be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A.Whether the application of Section 115BBE for taxing the unexplained income is valid for the assessment year 2017-18.Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A) erred in their findings and conclusions regarding the nature of the cash deposits and sales.Whether the procedural and evidentiary requirements were met by the tax authorities in making the addition.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Addition under Section 69A of the ActRelevant Legal Framework and PrecedentsSection 69A of the Income Tax Act allows for the addition of unexplained money, bullion, jewelry, or other valuable articles as income if not satisfactorily explained by the assessee. The AO relied on several judicial precedents that emphasize the burden on the assessee to prove the genuineness of transactions and the source of income.Court's Interpretation and ReasoningThe Tribunal noted that the assessee maintained proper books of accounts, which were audited and accepted by the VAT authorities. The sales were recorded in the books and VAT returns, and the tax was paid accordingly. The Tribunal found that the AO's conclusions were based on assumptions and lacked concrete evidence.Key Evidence and FindingsThe assessee provided VAT returns, sales bills, purchase bills, and other relevant documents to substantiate the cash deposits as legitimate sales. The Tribunal observed that the AO did not dispute the purchases or the stock available for sale.Application of Law to FactsThe Tribunal applied the principle that the apparent must be considered real unless proven otherwise. Since the sales were recorded and accepted by the VAT authorities, the Tribunal found no basis for treating them as unexplained income.Treatment of Competing ArgumentsThe Tribunal considered the AO's arguments about the timing of cash sales and deposits but found them speculative. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence to support the AO's claims of bogus sales.ConclusionsThe Tribunal concluded that the addition under Section 69A was unwarranted and based on assumptions, and thus deleted the addition.2. Applicability of Section 115BBERelevant Legal Framework and PrecedentsSection 115BBE prescribes a higher tax rate for income assessed under certain sections, including 69A. However, the amendment to apply this rate came into effect from the assessment year 2018-19.Court's Interpretation and ReasoningThe Tribunal noted that the AO applied the amended provisions of Section 115BBE retrospectively, which was not permissible. The law applicable on the first day of April of the relevant assessment year should apply.Key Evidence and FindingsThe Tribunal found no legal basis for applying the amended provisions of Section 115BBE for the assessment year 2017-18.Application of Law to FactsThe Tribunal held that the AO's application of the amended Section 115BBE was incorrect, as it was not applicable to the assessment year in question.Treatment of Competing ArgumentsThe Tribunal rejected the AO's reliance on the amended provisions, citing established legal principles regarding the non-retrospective application of tax laws.ConclusionsThe Tribunal concluded that the application of Section 115BBE was invalid for the assessment year 2017-18, rendering the AO's jurisdiction inapplicable.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning'The apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not the real.'Core Principles EstablishedThe Tribunal reinforced the principle that tax authorities must base their findings on concrete evidence and not assumptions. The retrospective application of tax laws is impermissible unless explicitly stated.Final Determinations on Each IssueThe Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 57,32,048/- under Section 69A, holding it to be illegal and based on assumptions. The Tribunal also rejected the applicability of Section 115BBE for the assessment year 2017-18.