2025 (8) TMI 943 - AT - Income Tax

Addition for unexplained cash deposits deleted after assessee's account summary and balance sheets satisfactorily explained withdrawals and deposits

Kishore Singh Shekhawat Versus The ITO, Ward 1 (1) Jaipur.

ITAT allowed the appeal and deleted the addition relating to unexplained cash deposits. The tribunal accepted the assessee's account summary and ... Unexplained Cash deposits in bank account - HELD THAT:-Assessee has submitted through written submission that during the year under consideration the assessee has deposited Rs. 20,63,300/- in his bank account maintained with ICICI and has withdrawn a sum of Rs. 19,80,850/- from the same bank account. A/R has further submitted that as per books of account of the assessee, the appellant assessee was having cash balance of Rs. 9,04,558/- as on 01.04.2013. A/R has submitted a summary of cash account for the year under consideration which shows that the assessee was having Rs. 9,04,558/- as opening cash balance and has withdrawn a sum of Rs. 19,80,850/- from the bank account and hence total accumulated amount was Rs. 28,85,408/-, out of which, a sum of Rs. 20,63,300/- was deposited into bank in the financial year 2013-14 thus leaving a cash balance of Rs. 8,22,108/- as asyear end. In support of opening cash balance, the ld. A/R has filed copies of capital account and balance sheet of the assessee for the year ended on 31.03.2011, 31.03.2012, 31.03.2013 and 31.03.2014 and has claimed to have been filed along with the Income-tax return. Thus, from the perusal of these documents, the claim of the appellant assessee seems to be correct as the ld. D/R has not produced any contradictory document. Claim of the assessee is admitted and the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is deleted. Assessee appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED Whether the total cash deposits made in the assessee's bank account during the relevant financial year were correctly determined by the Assessing Officer (AO) and upheld by the CIT (Appeals). Whether the cash deposits in the bank account can be explained as withdrawals from the same bank account and past savings reflected in the assessee's books of account. Whether the addition made by the AO under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained cash deposits, is justified given the evidence and submissions made. Whether the assessee's failure to file return of income and non-compliance with notices under sections 142(1), 148, and 147 of the Income Tax Act affects the validity of the claim regarding source of cash deposits. The quantum of addition that can be sustained after considering the withdrawals, deposits, and opening cash balance. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Correctness of Total Cash Deposits Determined by AO and CIT (Appeals) Legal Framework and Precedents: The AO is empowered under sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act to reopen assessments if there is reason to believe income has escaped assessment. Additions under section 69A can be made for unexplained cash credits. The CIT (Appeals) reviews the AO's findings and can confirm, modify, or delete additions based on evidence. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO considered cash deposits totaling Rs. 1,09,28,800/- based on three figures (Rs. 81,10,500/-, Rs. 20,63,300/-, Rs. 7,55,000/-) attributed to the same bank account number, which is factually impossible. The CIT (Appeals) acknowledged that only Rs. 20,63,300/- was actually deposited in the bank account as per the bank statement. Key Evidence and Findings: Bank statements produced show total cash deposits of Rs. 20,63,300/- in the relevant financial year. The AO's figures were inconsistent and not corroborated by bank records. Application of Law to Facts: Since the AO's addition was based on incorrect and unverifiable figures, only the amount supported by bank statements (Rs. 20,63,300/-) can be considered for further analysis. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee's contention that only Rs. 20,63,300/- was deposited was accepted over the AO's inflated figures. The CIT (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal on this ground. Conclusion: The addition based on Rs. 1,09,28,800/- cash deposits is incorrect; Rs. 20,63,300/- is the correct figure for cash deposits in the bank account for the year. Issue 2: Explanation of Cash Deposits as Withdrawals and Past Savings Legal Framework and Precedents: Under section 69A, unexplained cash credits can be added to income unless the assessee satisfactorily explains the source. Past savings and withdrawals from the same bank account, if supported by books of account and balance sheets, can be accepted as valid sources. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The assessee submitted detailed cash deposit and withdrawal charts, along with opening cash balances from prior years' balance sheets. The total withdrawals from the bank during the year amounted to Rs. 19,80,850/- and opening cash balance was Rs. 9,04,558/-, which together exceeded the cash deposited amount of Rs. 20,63,300/-, indicating that deposits were from legitimate sources. Key Evidence and Findings: Copies of balance sheets for the years ending 31.03.2011, 31.03.2012, 31.03.2013, and 31.03.2014 were submitted, showing consistent cash balances and capital accounts. The cash flow summary demonstrated that the cash deposited was explainable by withdrawals and opening balances. Application of Law to Facts: The Court found no contradictory evidence from the Revenue challenging the authenticity of the balance sheets or the cash flow statement. The detailed cash transaction records and prior year filings supported the assessee's explanation. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued lack of evidence for past savings and non-filing of returns for earlier years, but did not produce any contradictory documents to disprove the balance sheets submitted. The Revenue also pointed to absence of deposits post a large withdrawal on 28.02.2014, but this was not sufficient to discredit the overall explanation. Conclusion: The cash deposits of Rs. 20,63,300/- are satisfactorily explained as being from earlier withdrawals and past savings, supported by books of account and balance sheets. Issue 3: Validity of Addition under Section 69A and Quantum of Addition Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 69A allows addition of unexplained cash credits unless the assessee explains the source. The quantum of addition should be based on the unexplained portion after considering withdrawals and savings. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The CIT (Appeals) allowed Rs. 3,10,000/- as cash withdrawn from the bank and Rs. 2,00,000/- as cash balance from past savings, totaling Rs. 5,10,000/- as explained cash deposits. Accordingly, the addition was restricted to Rs. 15,53,300/- (Rs. 20,63,300/- minus Rs. 5,10,000/-). Key Evidence and Findings: The CIT (Appeals) relied on bank statements showing specific large withdrawals and considered a reasonable allowance for past savings. The assessee's detailed cash flow statement was not fully accepted, but partial allowance was made. Application of Law to Facts: The Court found that the CIT (Appeals) erred in restricting the explained cash deposits to Rs. 5,10,000/-, ignoring the opening cash balance and the full extent of withdrawals. Considering the opening cash balance and withdrawals, the entire cash deposit amount was explained. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's submission about lack of evidence for past savings and non-filing of returns was considered, but absence of contradictory evidence weakened their position. The Court gave weight to the detailed cash flow and balance sheets submitted by the assessee. Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 15,53,300/- sustained by the CIT (Appeals) is deleted. The entire cash deposit of Rs. 20,63,300/- is explained by withdrawals and opening cash balance. Issue 4: Impact of Non-Filing of Return and Non-Compliance with Notices Legal Framework and Precedents: Failure to file return and non-compliance with statutory notices can lead to adverse inferences and assessment under section 144. However, explanations supported by evidence can mitigate such consequences. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The assessee did not file return for the relevant assessment year and failed to respond to notices under sections 142(1), 148, and 147. The AO completed assessment under section 144 due to non-compliance. Despite this, the assessee submitted balance sheets and bank statements during appeal proceedings. Key Evidence and Findings: The Court noted the non-filing but also the submission of financial documents supporting the source of cash deposits. The Revenue did not produce evidence contradicting these documents. Application of Law to Facts: The Court held that non-filing and non-compliance alone do not justify sustaining additions if the assessee can satisfactorily explain the cash deposits with credible evidence. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue emphasized non-compliance as a ground to reject explanations; however, the Court prioritized substantive evidence over procedural lapses. Conclusion: Non-filing and non-compliance did not preclude acceptance of the assessee's explanation supported by books of account and bank statements. Issue 5: Treatment of Discrepancies in Bank Account Figures and Transactions Legal Framework and Precedents: Consistency in bank account numbers and transaction records is essential. Discrepancies in AO's figures must be resolved by verifying bank records. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO's reliance on three different cash deposit figures for the same bank account number was factually incorrect and not supported by bank records. Key Evidence and Findings: Bank statements confirmed only one cash deposit figure of Rs. 20,63,300/- for the relevant account. Application of Law to Facts: The Court rejected AO's inflated figures and relied on verified bank statements. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue did not provide evidence to support the higher figures. Conclusion: Only the cash deposits supported by bank statements are to be considered; AO's contradictory figures are disregarded.