2025 (3) TMI 290 - AT - Income Tax

Cash deposits from legitimate sales during demonetization cannot be taxed twice under section 69A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1, Aayakar Bhavan Versus M/s. RKR Gold Pvt Ltd.

ITAT Chennai upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of addition under section 69A read with section 115BBE regarding cash deposits made during demonetization period. ... Addition u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE - cash deposits made during demonetization period into various bank accounts in the form of Specified Bank Notes - CIT(A) deleted addition as held that the assessee’s submissions with regard to cash deposits during demonetization period is supported with documents and evidence HELD THAT:- When the sale has been reflected in the books of accounts and offered to tax, adding the same again would amount to double taxation, which is impermissible in law. The cash sales made by the assessee have been credited in the books of accounts and the same form part of the assessee’s cash book. On these facts, it could be very well said that the assessee’s claim was backed up by relevant evidences. Thus, the assessee has discharged the burden of proving the source of the cash/SBN deposited in the bank and the AO failed to rebut the same. The allegations/statistics of entire sales made from 01.11.2016 to 08.11.2016 by accepting the SBNs relied upon by the AO to take an adverse view is not backed up by relevant evidence/material and therefore the action of AO, which has been rightly set aside by the ld.CIT(A) and hence cannot be interfered. The finding of the AO that such abnormal sales could not be achieved before the announcement of demonetization by the Government, is bereft of any concrete evidence to prove otherwise on record. The reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble supreme court in the case of Durga Prasad More, is not applicable to the present facts of the case, as the assessee has furnished the documents and records which are submitted to the statutory authority like TNVAT department and discharged the taxes on monthly basis, apart from the books of accounts audited by a Chartered accountant. No addition could be made merely on the basis of suspicion, conjectures and surmises. Since cash generated out of sales has been credited in the books of accounts, the provisions of section 69A could not be invoked in the present case. The impugned additions are not sustainable in the eyes of law and hence, we are of the considered view that the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition need not be interfered - Decided in favour of assessee. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment are:Whether the cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization period were unexplained credits under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) was justified in treating the cash sales as fictitious and making additions to the income of the assessee.Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] was correct in deleting the additions made by the AO.Whether the transactions recorded below Rs. 2,00,000 were an attempt to bypass the provisions of Rule 114E(2) and Rule 114B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Unexplained Credits under Section 69ARelevant legal framework and precedents: Section 69A of the Income Tax Act deals with unexplained money, bullion, jewelry, or other valuable articles found in the possession of the assessee. The burden of proof lies on the assessee to explain the nature and source of such assets. The AO relied on precedents such as CIT v. Durga Prasad More and CIT v. M. Ganapathi Mudaliar to argue that the apparent must be considered real until proven otherwise.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to support the cash sales, including sales ledgers, cash books, and VAT returns. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not find any discrepancies in these documents.Key evidence and findings: The assessee submitted detailed records of sales and cash deposits, which were corroborated by stock registers and VAT returns. These records were not disputed by the AO.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal held that the cash sales were genuine and backed by evidence, and therefore, the cash deposits could not be treated as unexplained under Section 69A.Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal rejected the AO's reliance on human probability and suspicion, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence to support such claims.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the cash deposits were adequately explained and could not be taxed as unexplained income.Issue 2: Fictitious Cash SalesRelevant legal framework and precedents: The AO argued that the cash sales were fictitious, relying on the principle that the apparent must be considered real until shown otherwise.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the assessee's records were consistent and supported by third-party verification (VAT returns). The AO's suspicion was not backed by evidence.Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted the absence of any defects in the assessee's books of accounts, which were audited and accepted by tax authorities.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that additions cannot be made based on suspicion alone, especially when the assessee has provided sufficient evidence.Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal dismissed the AO's arguments as speculative and lacking evidentiary support.Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding no basis for treating the cash sales as fictitious.Issue 3: Bypassing Provisions of Rule 114E(2) and Rule 114BRelevant legal framework and precedents: The AO alleged that the assessee structured transactions below Rs. 2,00,000 to avoid compliance with PAN requirements under Rule 114E(2) and Rule 114B.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the transactions were within legal limits and the AO did not provide evidence of any wrongdoing.Key evidence and findings: The assessee's sales invoices complied with the relevant rules, and there was no evidence of structuring to evade legal obligations.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal found that the AO's allegations were based on assumptions rather than evidence.Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal emphasized that compliance with legal thresholds does not inherently imply wrongdoing.Conclusions: The Tribunal rejected the AO's claims, affirming that the assessee's transactions were legally compliant.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal emphasized that 'no addition could be made merely on the basis of suspicion, conjectures, and surmises.' This principle was central to rejecting the AO's arguments.The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had adequately explained the cash deposits and that the AO failed to provide evidence to the contrary.The Tribunal reiterated the importance of concrete evidence in tax assessments, especially when challenging documented transactions.The Tribunal's decision aligns with previous rulings, including ITO vs Sahana Jewellery Exports Pvt Ltd and other similar cases, reinforcing the need for evidence-based assessments.