2025 (6) TMI 291 - AT - Income Tax

Jewellery and Cash Surrender Validated as Legitimate Business Income, Challenging Revenue's Tax Interpretation Under Sections 69A and 69B

The SC/Tribunal ruled that jewellery and cash surrendered during a survey, totaling Rs.387.41 Lacs, should be treated as legitimate business income rather ... Surrender during survey against excess stock of jewellery & cash - jewellery would be deemed income u/s 69B and cash would be unexplained money u/s 69A - HELD THAT:- The assessee was engaged in jewellery trading. The jewellery was owned up by the assessee and it was admitted that the jewellery was being sent for sale through Shri Sunil Garg and Shri Bhagwan Singh. The survey party, in statement recorded u/s 131(1A), confronted the assessee with stock position and the assessee offered aggregate amount represented by jewellery and cash. The assessee always maintained that he had no other source of income except jewellery business and the excess stock was built up from business income only. No evidence was found to negate this consistent explanation of the assessee and therefore, most likely presumption would be that excess stock and cash was sourced from business income only. Reference was made to the decision of J.K. Chokshi [2015 (1) TMI 392 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], Bajargan Traders [2017 (11) TMI 388 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] as well as Deccan Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. [2021 (9) TMI 424 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT]holding view favoring the assessee. It was thus held that the impugned income would be taxed as business income only which would be subject to normal rate of tax only. Aggrieved as aforesaid, the revenue is in further appeal before us. The factual matrix would clearly indicate that the additional income as surrendered by the assessee was sourced out of business income only since the assessee is not shown to have any other source of income. The additional income has been offered to make up for the stock discrepancies during survey and returned income has duly been accepted by Ld. AO. Decided against revenue. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal include:Whether the jewellery valued at Rs.367.14 Lacs and cash amounting to Rs.19.94 Lacs, surrendered by the assessee during survey and included in the return of income, should be treated as unexplained income under sections 69B and 69A of the Income Tax Act, or as business income.Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in applying sections 69B and 69A read with section 115BBE, which impose a higher rate of tax on undisclosed income, in the facts and circumstances of this case.The evidentiary value and legal effect of the assessee's consistent explanation that the additional jewellery stock and cash originated from business income and not from any undisclosed source.The applicability and relevance of judicial precedents from various High Courts regarding the classification of such surrendered amounts as business income rather than unexplained income attracting penal provisions.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Treatment of surrendered jewellery and cash as unexplained income under sections 69B and 69A versus business incomeRelevant legal framework and precedents: Sections 69A and 69B of the Income Tax Act pertain to unexplained cash and unexplained investments respectively. Section 69A deals with unexplained money found on search or otherwise, while section 69B relates to unexplained investments in jewellery or other assets. Both sections allow the Assessing Officer to treat such amounts as income of the assessee if the source is not satisfactorily explained. Section 115BBE prescribes a higher rate of tax on such undisclosed income. However, the application of these provisions is discretionary and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in J.K. Chokshi vs ACIT, the Rajasthan High Court in PCIT vs. Bajargan Traders, and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in PCIT vs. Deccan Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. have held that where the assessee satisfactorily explains the source of such jewellery and cash as business income, these amounts should be taxed as normal business income rather than as unexplained income attracting penal provisions.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the assessee was engaged in jewellery trading under the name M/s Girraj Ornaments. The jewellery and cash in question were intercepted with employees of the assessee, who stated that the jewellery was being carried for sampling and sale and the cash represented sale proceeds. The assessee admitted the additional income of Rs.387.41 Lacs, comprising jewellery and cash, in the return of income. The Assessing Officer, however, treated these amounts as unexplained income under sections 69B and 69A, applying section 115BBE for higher taxation. The CIT(A) found no discussion in the assessment order justifying the application of these sections and emphasized that such application is discretionary. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's explanation that the jewellery and cash were part of the business stock and proceeds, noting that no evidence negated this consistent explanation.Key evidence and findings: The key evidence includes:Statements of employees carrying jewellery and cash, confirming their business purpose.Survey conducted under section 133A, during which the physical stock was reconciled.The assessee's admission of additional income in the return of income.Absence of any other source of income for the assessee besides the jewellery business.Judicial precedents supporting the assessee's position.Application of law to facts: Applying the legal principles and precedents, the Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation was credible and consistent, and the additional jewellery and cash were legitimately sourced from business activities. Hence, these amounts were rightly characterized as business income subject to normal tax rates rather than unexplained income attracting penal provisions.Treatment of competing arguments: The Assessing Officer's argument for invoking sections 69A and 69B was based on the intercepted jewellery and cash and the general presumption of unexplained income in such cases. However, the Tribunal found that the AO's order lacked detailed reasoning and failed to consider the assessee's consistent explanation and documentary evidence. The CIT(A) and Tribunal gave precedence to the assessee's credible explanation and relevant judicial decisions, thereby rejecting the revenue's contention.Conclusions: The jewellery and cash surrendered and admitted by the assessee were rightly treated as business income and not as unexplained income under sections 69B and 69A. The application of section 115BBE was therefore not justified.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal preserved the following crucial legal reasoning verbatim from the CIT(A) order and its own analysis:'...in the assessment order, there was no discussion as to why Ld. AO applied Sec.69B / 69A r.w.s. 115BBE particularly when the application of these sections was discretionary and not mandatory depending upon facts and circumstances of each case... No evidence was found to negate this consistent explanation of the assessee and therefore, most likely presumption would be that excess stock and cash was sourced from business income only.'Core principles established include:The discretionary nature of applying sections 69A and 69B, requiring careful consideration of facts and evidence.The necessity of credible and consistent explanation by the assessee regarding the source of jewellery and cash intercepted during search or survey.Where the assessee satisfactorily explains that such amounts arise from business activities and no contradictory evidence exists, they should be taxed as business income at normal rates.Judicial precedents from multiple High Courts support this approach, reinforcing the principle that penal provisions should not be invoked mechanically.Final determinations on each issue are:The jewellery valued at Rs.367.14 Lacs and cash amounting to Rs.19.94 Lacs surrendered and admitted by the assessee are to be treated as business income.The Assessing Officer's invocation of sections 69A and 69B read with section 115BBE for higher taxation was unwarranted.The appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s order in favor of the assessee.