2025 (2) TMI 598 - AT - Income Tax

Cash sales properly recorded in books cannot be treated as unexplained deposits under section 68 during demonetization

Jitendra Kumar Tahilramani Versus ITO, Ward-2, Jaipur

Jitendra Kumar Tahilramani Versus ITO, Ward-2, Jaipur - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:Whether the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee should be condoned.Whether the addition of Rs. 37,95,560 as unexplained cash deposits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act was justified.Whether the invocation of Section 115BBE by the Assessing Officer was appropriate given the circumstances.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISCondonation of DelayRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal considered the affidavit submitted by the assessee explaining the delay in filing the appeal, which was primarily due to the lack of notification via SMS and the assessee's unfamiliarity with checking emails.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay credible and supported by an affidavit. The Department did not contest these facts.Conclusion: The Tribunal deemed it a fit case to condone the delay, allowing the appeal to proceed.Addition under Section 68Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 68 of the Income Tax Act deals with unexplained cash credits. The assessee argued that the cash deposits were from legitimate sales and were recorded in the books of accounts.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined the evidence provided by the assessee, including sales invoices, books of accounts, and VAT returns. It noted that the sales were recorded and that the books were audited without adverse remarks.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted comprehensive documentation supporting the cash sales, including invoices and records of buyers.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer (AO) had accepted part of the sales as genuine but not others, which was inconsistent. The AO did not provide a valid basis for rejecting the books of accounts or for invoking Section 68.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the AO's arguments regarding the lack of complete buyer information and found them insufficient to reject the sales as non-genuine.Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the addition under Section 68 was not justified, as the sales were duly recorded and supported by evidence.Invocation of Section 115BBERelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 115BBE imposes a higher tax rate on income assessed under Section 68.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that since the addition under Section 68 was not justified, the invocation of Section 115BBE was also unwarranted.Conclusion: The Tribunal did not find it necessary to adjudicate this issue separately as the primary addition under Section 68 was deleted.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: 'Thus, we see no reason to sustain the addition of the amount recorded as sales i.e., for an amount of Rs. 37,95,560/- as 'unexplained cash deposits' u/s 68 and thereby direct the ld. AO to delete the same.'Core Principles Established: The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of a consistent approach in accepting or rejecting sales based on the same set of evidence. It also highlighted the importance of not invoking Section 68 without substantial evidence of non-genuine transactions.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The delay in filing the appeal was condoned. The addition under Section 68 was deleted, and consequently, the invocation of Section 115BBE was deemed unnecessary.