2025 (6) TMI 723 - AT - Income Tax

Small retailer's cash deposits from fruit and flower business treated as turnover, only 5% profit taxed under section 44AD

ITAT Rajkot held that cash deposits in bank account from family-owned retail fruit and flower business represented turnover, not unexplained income. The ... Addition of cash deposit in bank account - Assessee turnover from family-owned retail business of fruits and flowers - HELD THAT:- Assessee, along with other his family members engaged in the business of fruits and flowers where purchase and sale, both are in cash, and such sales, in cash, has been deposited in the bank account. Therefore, it is nothing but turnover (sales) of the assessee. The entire turnover(sales) have been taxed by the assessing officer, which is unfair, therefore only profit element is to be taxed in the hands of the assessee. Assessee under consideration, is small assessee and does not maintain books of accounts, therefore, the assessee, comes, under the provisions of section 44AD of the Act/ 44AF of the Income tax Act, therefore profit is to be estimated taking into account of retail business of the assessee. The estimation of income is based on facts and will vary from year to year depending on the business conditions. No doubt, estimate of the profit can be resorted to in these types of cases. Further, I find that the amount deposited out of family owned business in the bank account cannot be treated income of the assessee and only the profit element is to be taxed in the hands of the assessee. We find that in such type of business, 5% net profit (after deducting direct and indirect expenses from sale) is appropriate. Therefore, to meet the end of justice, the addition at the rate of @ 5% of the total turnover, which is deposited in the bank account, may be a reasonable addition, in the hands of the assessee. See Mukeshbhai Kishorbhai Lakhani [2023 (9) TMI 1415 - ITAT SURAT] Normal rate of income tax OR u/s 115BBE - The amount deposited in the bank account pertains to assessee’s family business of fruit and flowers, and it is a turnover (sales) of the assessee, therefore, direct the AO to tax the same, by applying normal rate of income tax (not under Section 115BBE of the Act). 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED- Whether the delay of 134 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal can be condoned on sufficient cause shown by the assessee.- Whether the cash deposit of Rs. 15,00,000/- in the assessee's bank account, unexplained in the return of income for AY 2011-12, can be treated as income and added fully to the assessee's taxable income under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.- Whether the entire amount deposited in the bank account, representing turnover from family-owned retail business of fruits and flowers, should be taxed as income or only the profit element should be taxed.- The appropriate method and quantum of addition to be made in the hands of the assessee in respect of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISCondonation of Delay in Filing AppealRelevant legal framework and precedents: The Income Tax Act prescribes strict time limits for filing appeals. However, the authorities have discretionary power to condone delay if sufficient cause is shown. The power to condone delay is not automatic and requires satisfaction of the authority that the delay occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The assessee's appeal was delayed by 134 days due to issuance of hearing notices under section 250 of the Act to an incorrect email ID, which prevented compliance. Upon discovering the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A), the assessee appointed a new authorized representative and filed the appeal before the Tribunal. The affidavit explaining these facts was considered a sufficient cause.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal found the reasons for delay to be genuine and mitigating, thereby exercising discretion in favour of the assessee and condoning the delay.Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue opposed condonation, but the Tribunal prioritized the interest of justice and sufficient cause shown by the assessee.Conclusion: Delay of 134 days in filing appeal was condoned.Treatment of Cash Deposit of Rs. 15,00,000/- in Bank AccountRelevant legal framework and precedents: Section 68 of the Income Tax Act deals with unexplained cash credits, which can be added to the income of the assessee if the source is not satisfactorily explained. Section 29 mandates computation of income from business profits under sections 30 to 43D. Section 44AD/44AF provides presumptive taxation for small businesses not maintaining books of accounts. Section 145 permits estimation of income where books are not reliable.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Assessing Officer reopened assessment under section 148 after prior approval and added Rs. 15,00,000/- as unexplained cash deposit under section 68, since the assessee had not filed return and failed to explain source. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition.However, the Tribunal noted that the cash deposits represented turnover (sales) of the family-owned retail business of fruits and flowers, which is a cash-intensive trade. It was undisputed that purchase and sale were in cash and the deposits were not net income but gross receipts. Therefore, treating the entire deposit as income was unfair and contrary to the scheme of the Act.Application of law to facts: Since the assessee did not maintain books and was a small business, presumptive taxation under section 44AD/44AF was applicable. The Tribunal held that only the profit element of the turnover should be taxed, not the gross turnover itself. It further observed that estimation of profit is permissible and varies with business conditions. The Tribunal considered 5% net profit as reasonable for such retail business, relying on precedents from coordinate Benches of the ITAT Surat.Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal relied on the factual admission of cash-based business, nature of transactions, and relevant case law where additions were restricted to 5% of total bank deposits as profit element.Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue insisted on full addition under section 68, but the Tribunal balanced the equities by taxing only the profit element, thus partially allowing the appeal.Conclusion: The addition was restricted to 5% of Rs. 15,00,000/-, i.e., Rs. 75,000/- as taxable income.Mode of Taxation of the AdditionThe Tribunal clarified that since the deposits represented turnover of family business, the addition should be taxed under normal provisions of the Income Tax Act and not under section 115BBE, which applies to unexplained income not relatable to business profits.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'The invocation of the power to condone any delay, major or minor, in observing such time limit is possible only on the satisfaction of the authorities, regarding the assessee having been unable to file the appeal in time due to sufficient cause. The assessee cannot be entitled to automatic admission of appeal filed after the time limit.''It is an undisputed fact that assessee, along with other his family members engaged in the business of fruits and flowers where purchase and sale, both are in cash, and such sales, in cash, has been deposited in the bank account. Therefore, it is nothing but turnover (sales) of the assessee. The entire turnover(sales) have been taxed by the assessing officer, which is unfair, therefore, I am of the view that only profit element is to be taxed in the hands of the assessee.''I find that in such type of business, 5% net profit (after deducting direct and indirect expenses from sale) is appropriate. Therefore, I am of the view that to meet the end of justice, the addition at the rate of @ 5% of the total turnover, which is deposited in the bank account, may be a reasonable addition, in the hands of the assessee.''The amount deposited in the bank account pertains to assessee's family business of fruit and flowers, and it is a turnover (sales) of the assessee, therefore, I direct the Assessing Officer to tax the same, by applying normal rate of income tax (not under Section 115BBE of the Act).'Final determinations:Delay of 134 days in filing appeal was condoned on sufficient cause.Full addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- as unexplained cash deposit under section 68 was not justified.Only 5% of the total cash deposits representing estimated net profit was to be added to taxable income.The addition was to be taxed under normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, not under special provisions for unexplained income.The appeal was partly allowed accordingly.