Unexplained cash addition deleted under section 69A due to double taxation but agricultural income addition upheld

ITAT Hyderabad partially allowed the assessee's appeal. The tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 48 lakhs under section 69A for unexplained cash seized during search, ruling that since the assessee had already declared and paid taxes on this amount for AY 2019-20, making the same addition for AY 2020-21 based solely on seizure date was illogical and constituted double taxation. However, the tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs agricultural income under "Income from Other Sources" as the assessee failed to provide evidence supporting the agricultural income claim despite declaring it in the return filed under section 139(4).

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal are:

(a) Whether the addition of Rs. 48,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating the cash seized during the course of search as unexplained money for the assessment year 2020-2021, is justified, given that the assessee had already declared and paid tax on this amount for the assessment year 2019-2020.

(b) Whether the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- under the head "Income from Other Sources" towards agricultural income is sustainable in the absence of documentary evidence supporting the claim of agricultural income, despite the return of income being filed belatedly.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a): Addition of Rs. 48,00,000/- as unexplained cash under section 69A

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, deals with unexplained money found during search or requisition. The provision allows the Assessing Officer to treat such money as income of the assessee if the source is not satisfactorily explained. The date of seizure is generally relevant to determine the assessment year in which the addition is to be made.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the cash of Rs. 48,00,000/- was physically found on 03.04.2019, which falls in the financial year 2019-2020, relevant to assessment year 2020-2021. The Assessing Officer made the addition for the year 2020-2021 based on the date of seizure.

However, the assessee had explained the source of the cash as business income for the financial year 2018-2019, relevant to assessment year 2019-2020, and had admitted the additional income of Rs. 48 lakhs during the course of search for that year. The assessee also filed a belated return for assessment year 2019-2020 declaring total income including this additional income and paid taxes accordingly.

The Tribunal held that making an addition for the same amount in the subsequent assessment year solely on the basis of the date of seizure amounts to double addition. It emphasized the principle that correct income should be assessed in the correct assessment year.

The Tribunal further reasoned that it is practically impossible to earn such a large sum within two days of the new financial year, thus supporting the assessee's claim that the income pertains to the previous year. The Tribunal criticized the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) for ignoring these facts and sustaining the addition.

Key evidence and findings: The assessee's statement under section 131, the belated return filed for assessment year 2019-2020 declaring the additional income, and payment of taxes on the same were pivotal. The absence of any contradictory evidence from the Revenue was noted.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle of correct assessment year and the requirement that income must be assessed once, not twice. The date of seizure alone cannot override the admitted source and prior declaration of income.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued that the date of seizure governs the assessment year and thus addition for 2020-2021 was justified. The Tribunal rejected this argument as illogical and contrary to tax principles.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 48,00,000/- under section 69A for assessment year 2020-2021 was held to be erroneous and was directed to be deleted.

Issue (b): Addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- as agricultural income under "Income from Other Sources"

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Agricultural income is exempt under the Income Tax Act but must be supported by evidence such as land ownership documents, proof of agricultural activity, and sale of agricultural produce. The filing of a belated return under section 139(4) does not automatically validate the claimed income; the Assessing Officer must verify the claim.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to produce any documentary evidence such as pattadar passbook, details of crops grown, or sale receipts to substantiate the claim of agricultural income of Rs. 10 lakhs.

The assessee contended that since the return was filed belatedly and thus considered non est in law, no addition could be made based on that return. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that once the assessee claims agricultural income in the return, the Assessing Officer is obliged to examine and assess its taxability in accordance with law.

Key evidence and findings: Absence of any supporting documents or evidence for agricultural income was critical. The belated nature of the return was acknowledged but held not to preclude assessment of claimed income.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that claims in the return must be substantiated and the Assessing Officer has the authority to disallow unsubstantiated claims. The belated filing of return does not immunize the claimed income from scrutiny.

Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee's legal argument on the non-est status of the belated return was rejected. The Revenue's stance that absence of evidence justifies the addition was accepted.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- under Income from Other Sources towards agricultural income was upheld.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal held:

"The addition made by the Assessing Officer for the year under consideration only on the basis of date of seizure of cash i.e., on 03.04.2019, amounts to double addition. No doubt, correct income should be assessed in the correct assessment year. If we go by the date of seizure of the cash, it falls in the assessment year 2020-2021. Further, going by the theory of human preponderance, it is impossible for any person to earn such a huge amount of Rs. 48 lakhs in two days of the financial year. Therefore, in our considered view, when the assessee has admitted additional income towards cash seized during the course of search of Rs. 48 lakhs for the assessment year 2019-2020, if at all the income is assessable in the assessment year 2020-2021, the DDIT (Inv), Unit-1(2), Hyderabad, should have accepted the declaration for the assessment year 2020-2021 instead of assessment year 2019-2020. Having accepted the declaration for the assessment year 2019-2020 and collected taxes on the income, once again making the addition on very same income for the subsequent assessment year only on the basis of date of seizure of cash is illogical, devoid of merit and cannot be accepted."

Core principles established include:

- Income must be assessed in the correct assessment year based on the source and not merely on the date of seizure.

- Double addition of the same income in two separate assessment years is impermissible.

- The burden lies on the assessee to substantiate claims of agricultural income with credible evidence; failure to do so justifies disallowance.

- A belated return filed under section 139(4) does not preclude the Assessing Officer from scrutinizing and making additions if claims are unsubstantiated.

Final determinations:

- The addition of Rs. 48,00,000/- under section 69A for assessment year 2020-2021 was deleted.

- The addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards agricultural income was upheld.

---