Society's cash deposits remanded to AO for re-examination after providing Toddy sale evidence

ITAT Hyderabad allowed the assessee-society's appeal for statistical purposes regarding cash deposits into bank accounts. The society, registered under Societies Registration Act and operating four Toddy shops with excise licenses, claimed deposits originated from Toddy sale proceeds through four cooperative societies. The society provided audit reports, minutes books, and monthly accounts as evidence. Since additional evidence wasn't presented before AO and CIT(A), ITAT remanded the matter to AO for re-examination. AO was directed to delete the addition if the society proves the source through books of accounts and evidence from the four Toddy Tappers Cooperative Societies.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:

• Whether the reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was justified based on information regarding cash deposits and time deposits in the assessee-society's bank accountsRs.
• Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer under sections 69A and 69 of the Act towards unexplained cash deposits and time deposits respectively were legally sustainableRs.
• Whether the assessee-society satisfactorily explained the source of cash deposits made into its bank accounts, particularly by proving that the deposits arose from sale proceeds of Toddy through multiple cooperative societiesRs.
• Whether the deduction claimed under section 80P of the Income Tax Act was rightly disallowed by the CIT(A)Rs.
• Whether the matter requires remand for further verification of evidences filed by the assessee-society to substantiate the source of cash depositsRs.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Reopening of Assessment under Section 148

The reopening of the assessment was initiated under section 148 of the Act based on information available in the Department's RMS module indicating that the assessee-society was a non-filer with potential tax liabilities due to cash deposits exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs and time deposits exceeding Rs. 2 lakhs. The Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice under section 148A and subsequently, after no response from the assessee, issued a notice under section 148. The reopening was done after obtaining prior approval from the Competent Authority.

The Tribunal noted the procedural compliance in reopening the assessment and did not find any infirmity in the initiation of reassessment proceedings. The reopening was based on credible information of unexplained deposits, which is a recognized ground for reopening under the Act.

Additions under Sections 69A and 69

The Assessing Officer made additions under section 69A towards cash deposits and under section 69 towards time deposits, treating them as unexplained income. The assessee-society failed to furnish any evidence or appear during the assessment proceedings to explain the source of these deposits, leading to a best judgment assessment.

On appeal, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal by deleting the addition relating to time deposits after perusal of bank statements, accepting the claim of the assessee-society in that regard. However, the addition towards cash deposits was upheld on the ground that the assessee-society failed to adequately explain the source of the cash deposits.

The Tribunal analyzed the submissions of both parties and the evidences filed before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. It was noted that the assessee-society operates through four different Toddy Tappers Cooperative Societies, each maintaining separate books of accounts and audited by the State Cooperative Audit Department. The assessee claimed that the cash deposits in question were derived from the sale proceeds of Toddy through these societies.

The assessee had furnished audit reports, minutes books, and monthly receipt and payment accounts of the four societies to substantiate its claim. However, these evidences were not filed before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A) in a complete manner and were submitted as additional evidences before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal emphasized that since the full evidences were not placed before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), the matter required remand for verification. It directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the claim in light of the additional evidences and verify the source of cash deposits through the books of accounts and other relevant documents of the four cooperative societies.

The Tribunal held that if the assessee-society is able to prove the source of cash deposits satisfactorily, the Assessing Officer should delete the addition made under section 69A.

Claim of Deduction under Section 80P

The CIT(A) had rejected the assessee-society's claim for deduction under section 80P of the Act. The Tribunal, however, left this issue open for the Assessing Officer to decide afresh after remand, considering the evidences and submissions that may be filed by the assessee-society.

Treatment of Competing Arguments

The Revenue argued that the assessee-society failed to furnish relevant evidences to explain the cash deposits and that the CIT(A) rightly sustained the addition. The assessee contended that the source was the sale of Toddy through cooperative societies and that additional evidences were filed before the Tribunal warranting remand.

The Tribunal balanced these arguments by acknowledging the procedural lapse in not filing complete evidences before the lower authorities but also recognizing the genuineness of the assessee's claim supported by audit reports and minutes books. The Tribunal's decision to remit the matter for fresh verification ensures adherence to principles of natural justice and proper adjudication on merits.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal held:

"The assessee-society has furnished relevant audit reports of Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society maintained by the assessee-society for sale of Toddy. The assessee-society had also furnished minutes books of the assessee-society and as per the said minutes, there is a clear evidence in the form of sale of Toddy through four different societies."

"Since the explanation of assessee-society in light of additional evidences was not filed before the Assessing Officer and learned CIT(A), in our considered view, the matter needs to go back to the Assessing Officer for further verification."

"In case, the assessee-society is able to prove the source of cash deposit into the bank a/c on the basis of books of accounts and other evidences of four different Toddy Tappers Cooperative Societies, then, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition made towards cash deposit into bank account."

The core principles established include:

• Reopening of assessment under section 148 is justified on credible information of unexplained cash and time deposits.
• The burden lies on the assessee to explain the source of unexplained cash deposits with relevant and complete evidences.
• Additional evidences filed before appellate authorities but not before the Assessing Officer warrant remand for verification rather than outright rejection.
• Proper opportunity must be given to the assessee to substantiate claims, and the Assessing Officer must consider all relevant evidences before making additions.
• Issues not conclusively decided by the Tribunal, such as deduction under section 80P, are to be decided afresh by the Assessing Officer after remand.

Final determinations:

• The reopening of assessment under section 148 was valid.
• The addition towards time deposits was rightly deleted by the CIT(A).
• The addition towards cash deposits was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh verification in light of additional evidences.
• The claim under section 80P was left open for decision by the Assessing Officer after remand.
• The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes by remanding the matter for fresh adjudication.

---