2025 (6) TMI 1306 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee gets fresh hearing opportunity after ex-parte dismissal for unexplained cash deposits under sections 69A and 115BBE

Palleboyina Manju Rani, Hyderabad Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7 (1), Hyderabad

The HC set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte dismissal and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh examination. The assessee faced addition of Rs. 54,98,000 as ... Addition u/sec.69A r.w.s.115BBE - unexplained cash deposit into the bank account - assessee has explained source for cash deposit out of amount received from her family members to prove/show sufficient cash balance in her bank account for the purpose of getting VISA for her son who got offer letter from USA - HELD THAT:- The assessee has furnished relevant bank statements of her husband and her bank account statements and prove that sufficient amount of cash has been withdrawn from her husband’s bank account and the same has been deposited in her bank account. We find that, the assessee’s husband bank account show sufficient cash withdrawal either on the same day or on the previous date of cash deposit into her bank account. The assessee claims that she has furnished all evidences including relevant bank statements before the AO. But, the AO says that, assessee has not filed any evidences. Therefore, the facts are contradictory. Before the CIT(A), the assessee could not appear and explain the case with relevant evidences. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, matter needs fresh examination from the AO in light of evidences filed by the assessee to prove the source of cash deposit. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED- Whether the cash deposits amounting to Rs. 54,98,000/- in the assessee's bank accounts are unexplained cash under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, warranting addition to the income of the assessee.- Whether the assessee has satisfactorily explained the source of the cash deposits by adducing relevant evidence, including bank statements of herself and her husband.- Whether the Assessing Officer and the first appellate authority (CIT(A)) correctly evaluated the evidence and afforded the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing before making and sustaining the addition.- Whether the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Legality of addition of cash deposits as unexplained cash under section 69A read with section 115BBEThe relevant legal framework comprises sections 69A and 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 69A empowers the Assessing Officer to treat any sum found credited in the books of an assessee as income of the assessee if the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of such sum. Section 115BBE mandates tax at a special rate on unexplained cash credits.In the present case, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 and subsequently under section 142(1) to elicit explanation regarding the cash deposits. The assessee submitted that the cash was received from family members to demonstrate sufficient funds for her son's USA VISA application. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied and treated the deposits as unexplained cash, adding Rs. 54,98,000/- to the income.The Court observed that the factum of cash deposit is undisputed. The assessee claimed that the cash originated from withdrawals from her husband's bank account, supported by bank statements. The husband's bank account reflected sufficient withdrawals on or before the dates of deposit. This evidence, if accepted, would negate the presumption of unexplained cash under section 69A.The Assessing Officer's rejection of the explanation was primarily due to the alleged non-filing of evidences by the assessee. However, the assessee contended that all relevant documents were furnished. This contradiction between the parties' positions required careful scrutiny.Issue 2: Adequacy of opportunity and evaluation of evidence by CIT(A)The CIT(A) issued multiple notices during the appellate proceedings. The assessee initially responded and sought adjournments, which were granted. Subsequently, the assessee failed to appear and did not file further details. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution and upheld the addition.The assessee's counsel argued that the dismissal was without effective opportunity and without considering the facts and evidences filed, including Form-35. The Revenue contended that the assessee's failure to appear and inconsistent explanations (initially attributing the cash to family members, later to the husband) justified the dismissal and the sustaining of the addition.The Court noted that the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A) prevented a full opportunity to explain the case. Given the contradictory factual matrix-assessee's claim of evidence submission versus the Assessing Officer's denial-the Court found it appropriate that the matter be re-examined rather than decided on ex-parte basis.The Court emphasized the principle that an assessee should be given a fair chance to substantiate explanations, especially when documentary evidence such as bank statements is available to support the source of cash deposits.Issue 3: Contradiction in source explanation and evidentiary burdenThe Revenue highlighted that the assessee's explanation shifted from 'family members' to 'husband' as the source of cash. This inconsistency was relied upon to question the credibility of the explanation.The Court acknowledged this change in stance but also noted that the relevant evidences (bank statements showing withdrawals from husband's account) were purportedly filed. The key question was whether these evidences were duly considered by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A).The Court found that since the CIT(A) did not examine these evidences due to the ex-parte dismissal, the matter warranted fresh consideration.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'The assessee has furnished relevant bank statements of her husband and her bank account statements and prove that sufficient amount of cash has been withdrawn from her husband's bank account and the same has been deposited in her bank account.''The facts are contradictory. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee could not appear and explain the case with relevant evidences. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, matter needs fresh examination from the Assessing Officer in light of evidences filed by the assessee to prove the source of cash deposit.''Thus, we set-aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to verify the case with relevant evidences filed by the assessee to prove source of cash deposit.'Core principles established include the necessity of giving a fair opportunity to the assessee to substantiate explanations with evidence, especially in cases of cash deposits alleged to be unexplained. The burden of proof lies on the assessee to satisfactorily explain the source, but the authorities must consider all evidence before making additions. Ex-parte dismissal without such consideration is inappropriate.Final determinations:The addition of Rs. 54,98,000/- as unexplained cash under section 69A read with 115BBE was not upheld without proper examination of the evidences.The ex-parte dismissal of the appeal by CIT(A) for non-prosecution was set aside due to failure to provide effective opportunity.The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and decision in light of the evidences filed by the assessee.