2025 (8) TMI 665 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained Cash Deposits of Rs. 9 Lakh Added to Income Under Section 69A During Demonetization

The ITAT Mumbai upheld the addition of unexplained cash deposits totaling Rs. 9 lakh made during the demonetization period to the assessee's income under ... Unexplained cash deposits - deposits during the period of demonetization i.e of high denomination notes - Onus to prove- as deposited cash deposits were made out of profit from sale of stove parts HELD THAT:- Assessee could not explain the source of cash despots in the bank accounts in any satisfactory manner supported by any concrete evidence. The claim of deposits out of business receipts is devoid of any minimal evidence. However, in spite of doing business as claimed, he has not filed the return of income till AY 2016-17. It is also pertinent to mention here that assessee has not shown any such income for subsequent assessment year i.e AY 2018-19 as well. The purported claim that the cash deposit is his accumulated earning till 2016-17 and the same is deposited in the bank account, it was rightly pointed out by the Revenue that the assessee deposited old demonetized currency to the tune of Rs. 45,000/- in the bank account on every other day starting just after the announcement of demonetization. Also seen from the table that the assessee is depositing the cash in three different accounts in the tune of Rs. 45,000/- every another day which clearly showed that the amount was deposited just below the threshold limit of Rs. 50,000/- and if it is accumulated earning, as stated by the assessee, the amount was to be deposited at one time only, which was not done. Section 69A of the Act allows the tax authorities to initiate an inquiry into any substantial unexplained cash deposits and subsequently assess them as unexplained income. The onus is on the taxpayer to substantiate the legitimacy of the deposited cash through proper documentation and evidence. in this case cash deposited in the bank accounts during demonetization period could neither be treated as business income nor saving of the assessee in absence of any evidence. Assessee miserably failed to bring on record any cogent evidence to support his explanation to prove the genuineness of source of cash deposit made and thus, the source of the above cash deposit of Rs. 9 lakh remained unexplained and therefore was rightly added to the total income of the assessee u/s 69A - Decided against assessee. 1. Issues Presented and Considered Whether the cash deposits of Rs. 9,00,000/- made during the demonetization period can be treated as income from business or accumulated savings of the assessee. Whether the assessee satisfactorily explained the source of the cash deposits under the provisions of Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Whether the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in treating the unexplained cash deposits as income under Section 69A. Whether the assessee's claim of voluntary disclosure of income under 'Income from Other Sources' was duly considered and accepted. Whether the repeated deposits just below the threshold limit during demonetization period indicate an attempt to evade scrutiny. Whether the absence of documentary evidence such as shop license, GST returns, or business commencement certificate undermines the claim of business income. Whether the appellant's age and retirement status are relevant for assessing the genuineness of the source of deposits. 2. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis Issue 1: Treatment of Cash Deposits of Rs. 9,00,000/- during Demonetization Period Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 69A of the Income-tax Act empowers the Assessing Officer to treat unexplained cash deposits as income of the assessee if the source is not satisfactorily explained. The provision applies when money is found to be owned by the assessee but not recorded in books of account or linked to any declared source of income. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the assessee deposited Rs. 9,00,000/- in three bank accounts between 09.11.2016 and 31.12.2016, coinciding with the demonetization period. The deposits were made in amounts just below Rs. 50,000/- repeatedly, which suggested an attempt to avoid detection or scrutiny. The Tribunal observed that if the deposits represented accumulated savings or business income, a lump sum deposit would have been more logical rather than multiple smaller deposits. Key Evidence and Findings: Bank statements showed systematic deposits of Rs. 45,000/- almost every alternate day in three different accounts. The assessee claimed the source as profit from sale of stove parts and accumulated savings over years. However, no documentary evidence such as shop license, GST returns, or business commencement certificate was furnished to substantiate the business claim. Application of Law to Facts: In absence of credible documentary evidence and given the pattern of deposits, the Tribunal found the explanation of accumulated savings or business income unconvincing. The pattern of deposits during demonetization indicated an attempt to circumvent the Rs. 50,000/- reporting threshold. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee argued that he was a senior citizen, retired from Railways, and had been engaged in the stove parts business with family members, and that the deposits represented accumulated savings voluntarily offered to tax. The Tribunal rejected this argument due to lack of evidence and inconsistency in filing returns for relevant years. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 9,00,000/- as unexplained income under Section 69A, confirming the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s orders. Issue 2: Explanation of Source of Cash Deposits and Burden of Proof Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Under Section 69A, the onus lies on the assessee to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of unexplained money or deposits. Mere assertions without documentary proof are insufficient. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee failed to provide any tangible documentary evidence to support the claim of business income or accumulated savings. The absence of returns filed for the years preceding and succeeding the assessment year further weakened the claim. Key Evidence and Findings: No shop license, GST returns, business commencement certificates, or other business-related documents were submitted. The assessee's family members were stated to be in the business, but no corroborative evidence linked the deposits to business profits. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that unexplained deposits without evidence can be treated as income under Section 69A. The failure to file returns for AY 2018-19 and prior years despite claiming business activity was a significant factor. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee's claim that the deposits were accumulated earnings voluntarily offered to tax was not supported by any documentary evidence. The Tribunal found this explanation unsatisfactory. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the assessee did not discharge the burden of proof to explain the source of cash deposits, justifying the addition under Section 69A. Issue 3: Relevance of Assessee's Age and Retirement Status Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: While personal circumstances such as age may be considered in assessing credibility, they do not exempt an assessee from providing evidence to substantiate income sources. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's advanced age and retirement from Railways in 1991 but noted that these factors do not negate the requirement to substantiate the source of deposits. The purpose of demonetization was not to trouble senior citizens, but that does not relieve the assessee from compliance with tax laws. Key Evidence and Findings: Despite the age and retirement status, the assessee failed to provide documentary proof of business activity or accumulated savings. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that age and retirement status are not determinative factors in the absence of supporting evidence for the source of deposits. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The argument that the deposits were accumulated over years post-retirement was not accepted due to lack of evidence and inconsistent tax filings. Conclusion: The Tribunal rejected the contention that the assessee's age and retirement status justified acceptance of the deposits as legitimate income without evidence. Issue 4: Alleged Double Addition of Rs. 9,00,000/- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The principle of no double taxation or double addition is well established in income tax proceedings. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The CIT(A) had deleted the alleged double addition of Rs. 9,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer, confirming only one addition under Section 69A. Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted that the issue of double addition was resolved at the appellate stage and did not form a basis for interference. Application of Law to Facts: Since the double addition was deleted, the Tribunal did not interfere with this aspect. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee's contention regarding double addition was accepted by CIT(A) and not disputed further. Conclusion: No interference was required on the issue of double addition. Issue 5: Voluntary Disclosure of Income under 'Income from Other Sources' Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Voluntary disclosure of income is generally accepted if the source is genuine and supported by evidence. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the assessee voluntarily offered the Rs. 9,00,000/- under 'Income from Other Sources' but failed to substantiate the source with credible evidence. Mere voluntary disclosure without proof does not preclude addition under Section 69A. Key Evidence and Findings: Absence of business documentation and inconsistent tax filings undermined the claim of genuine voluntary disclosure. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that voluntary disclosure is not a substitute for evidence and cannot override the statutory provisions when the source remains unexplained. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee's reliance on voluntary disclosure was rejected due to lack of corroboration. Conclusion: The addition under Section 69A was justified despite voluntary disclosure. Issue 6: Pattern of Cash Deposits and Its Implication Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Deposits structured to avoid reporting thresholds can be treated as suspicious and indicative of unaccounted income. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the assessee deposited Rs. 45,000/- repeatedly in multiple accounts during demonetization, just below the Rs. 50,000/- limit, which indicated an attempt to evade detection. Key Evidence and Findings: Bank statements showed systematic deposits in three accounts over a period of about 50 days. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that such a pattern is inconsistent with the claim of accumulated savings and supports the inference of unexplained income. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee's explanation of accumulated savings was not accepted in light of the deposit pattern. Conclusion: The deposit pattern justified the addition under Section 69A. Issue 7: Absence of Documentary Evidence Supporting Business Activity Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Documentary evidence such as shop license, GST returns, and business commencement certificates are essential to establish the genuineness of business income. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee failed to produce any such documents despite repeated requests and notices. Key Evidence and Findings: No business-related documents were submitted; the assessee's family members' business was not linked to the deposits. Application of Law to Facts: The lack of documentary proof led to rejection of the business income claim. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assertion of business activity without evidence was insufficient. Conclusion: The absence of documentary evidence was a critical factor in upholding the addition under Section 69A.