2025 (5) TMI 600 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal allows appeal against unexplained cash deposits addition under section 69A during demonization period

Payel Verma Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (3), Bhilai (C.G.)

Payel Verma Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (3), Bhilai (C.G.) - TMI 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this appeal are:- Whether the addition of Rs. 17,61,000 made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained cash deposits in demonetized currency notes, is justified.- Whether the cash deposits of Rs. 17,61,000 in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) during the demonetization period can be treated as undisclosed income when the same has been credited in the sale account, recorded in audited books, and taxes paid thereon.- Whether the provisions of section 69A can be invoked in respect of cash deposits that have already been declared and taxed, thereby avoiding double taxation.- Whether the Assessing Officer and the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) erred in ignoring the business model and explanation offered by the assessee regarding the source and nature of cash deposits.- Whether the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act is justified.- Whether penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) of the Act were correctly initiated.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Legitimacy of Addition of Rs. 17,61,000 under Section 69A r.w.s Section 115BBERelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 69A of the Income Tax Act empowers the Assessing Officer to treat any sum found credited in the books of an assessee's account or deposited in any bank account as income of the assessee if the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of such sum. Section 115BBE prescribes a special rate of tax on income declared or assessed under certain sections including 69A. The principle underlying section 69A is to tax unexplained cash credits or deposits that are not accounted for in the regular books of accounts.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court observed that the Assessing Officer did not dispute the nature of the assessee's business as a wholesaler supplying goods to retailers, including small pan shops and other petty traders. It was accepted that these retailers often operate without formal income tax or GST documentation and conduct business through mobile carts or trolleys, making it difficult to maintain fixed addresses or detailed records.The Court noted that the cash deposits in question, including the Rs. 17,61,000 in demonetized currency, were credited in the sale account and reflected in the audited books of accounts. The turnover and business model of the assessee were not challenged, nor was there any rejection of the books of accounts under section 145(3). The Assessing Officer did not find any discrepancies in purchases or sales, and the stock registers were properly maintained.Further, the Court emphasized that the Department's reliance on an adverse report dated 29 November 2019, which was not shared with the assessee, constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice, as the assessee was denied an opportunity to rebut the findings.Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee's explanation that the demonetized notes were received from small retailers who lacked formal documentation was accepted. The cash sales were recorded in the books and included in the income returned. The Department did not dispute the genuineness of the business transactions or the correctness of the books.Application of Law to Facts: Since the cash deposits were accounted for in the audited books and declared in the return of income, invoking section 69A to treat the same as unexplained money would amount to double taxation. The Court held that section 69A cannot be applied where income from a source has already been taxed.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department argued that the cash deposits were unexplained and that the addresses of cash customers could not be verified, justifying the addition under section 69A. The Court rejected this, holding that the nature of the business and the realities of the retail customers justified the absence of fixed addresses and formal documentation. The Court also rejected the Department's failure to provide the adverse report to the assessee as a procedural lapse.Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 17,61,000 under section 69A read with section 115BBE was not sustainable. The Court set aside the order of the NFAC and directed deletion of the addition.Issue 2: Levy of Interest under Sections 234B and 234CRelevant Legal Framework: Section 234B provides for interest on shortfall of advance tax, while section 234C deals with interest for deferment of advance tax installments.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that since the addition under section 69A was deleted, the basis for the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C also fell away. The appellant had denied liability for these interest charges.Conclusion: The Court found merit in the appellant's contention and held that the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C was erroneous in the absence of a valid addition.Issue 3: Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271AAC(1)Relevant Legal Framework: Section 271AAC(1) imposes penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in cases of search and seizure.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court did not explicitly delve into the penalty issue in detail but implied that since the addition was deleted and no concealment was established, penalty proceedings were not justified.Conclusion: The initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) was unwarranted.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'When all these parameters have been fulfilled by the assessee, there cannot be any addition u/s. 69A of the Act treating the cash deposits in the bank account as unexplained money of the assessee.''The provision of Section 69A of the Act cannot be applied in respect of alleged unexplained cash deposited of Rs. 17,61,000 in the regular bank account of the appellant during demonetization period which have been duly recorded in the audited books of accounts and had already been declared income in the return of income and taxes have been paid on the same by the appellant.''The Department has not questioned the turnover of the assessee and also has accepted the business module conducted by the assessee. Books of accounts of the assessee has also been accepted by the department.''The alleged report dated 29 November 2019 submitted by the inspector containing the adverse findings which was relied upon by the Assessing Officer for taxing demonetized cash deposited was not shared with the appellant to rebut the findings in the report. Hence, it was gross violation of principles of natural justice.'Core principles established include:Section 69A cannot be invoked where cash deposits are duly recorded in audited books and income has already been declared and taxed, to avoid double taxation.The nature of the business and its customer base must be taken into account when assessing the explanation for cash deposits, especially in cases involving small retailers lacking formal documentation.Procedural fairness and adherence to principles of natural justice require that adverse reports relied upon by the Assessing Officer be shared with the assessee.Acceptance of books of accounts and business turnover by the Department precludes additions under section 69A without cogent evidence.Final determinations:The addition of Rs. 17,61,000 under section 69A read with section 115BBE is deleted.The levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C is set aside.The penalty proceedings initiated under section 271AAC(1) are unwarranted.