2025 (9) TMI 28 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of Rs.22.6L under s.69A deleted; Rs.18L matched to deposits, cash explained as salary and marriage gifts

ITAT Chennai held that the AO's addition of Rs.22,60,000 under s.69A was not maintainable and deleted it. The Tribunal found a nexus between withdrawals ... Unexplained money u/s 69A - cash deposits unexplained - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) only doubted risk and security of the cash being kept in the custody of the assessee and travelling from Chennai to Salem of long distance is not acceptable, in our opinion, is not justified. CIT(A) did not accept the cash in hand as accumulation of salary and marriage gifts. Both the authorities below did not bring on record anything to show that the cash in hand are not out of marriage gifts and salary and when there being no contrary evidence to the explanation of the assessee, the addition made thereon is not justified. In this case, we find nexus between withdrawal and deposit to an extent of ₹.18 lakhs and having no contrary evidence to prove the cash in hand are not out of marriage gifts and salary, the addition made by the AO which was confirmed by the CIT(A) are not maintainable. Therefore, the addition made by the AO to an extent of ₹.22,60,000/- is deleted - Decided in favour of assessee. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts can be added to income under section 69A where the assessee withdrew matured fixed deposits in cash and later deposited the same cash in another bank account. 2. Whether the Assessing Officer and the first appellate authority could sustain an addition where the assessee explained cash-in-hand as consisting of marriage gifts and accumulated salary and there was no evidence to contradict that explanation. 3. Whether the fact that cash was kept for a period (117 days) and transported over a long distance (from one city to another) justifies disbelieving the explanation and sustaining an addition under section 69A. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Legitimacy of addition under section 69A where cash withdrawn from matured FDs was subsequently deposited in bank Legal framework: Section 69A permits inclusion in income of any sum found as unexplained cash, where the assessee fails to satisfactorily account for it. The statutory enquiry hinges on whether the source/explanation offered is acceptable on the evidence on record. Precedent treatment: No precedent was cited or applied by the authorities; the Tribunal proceeded on the factual matrix and statutory standard of proof applicable under section 69A. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the chronology: matured fixed deposits were withdrawn in cash (Rs. 18,00,000) on 03.09.2011 and the same sum was deposited in two instalments into the assessee's Axis Bank account at Salem on 29.12.2011 and 12.01.2012. The Tribunal found a clear nexus between withdrawal of matured FDs and subsequent deposits. In the absence of any material to contradict the fact of maturity and withdrawal, the mechanistic application of section 69A to treat those deposits as unexplained was not justified. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where a traced nexus exists between lawful withdrawal of matured bank deposits and subsequent deposits, and no contrary evidence is placed on record to disprove the source, an addition under section 69A is not maintainable. Obiter - None beyond the factual application. Conclusion: The addition made under section 69A insofar as it related to the cash originating from matured fixed deposits was deleted. Issue 2: Acceptability of explanation that cash-in-hand comprised marriage gifts and accumulated salary Legal framework: Under section 69A, the assessee's explanation must be accepted unless the revenue produces evidence contradicting it or shows that the explanation is inherently impossible or improbable on the record. Precedent treatment: The authorities below disbelieved the explanation but did not produce any affirmative evidence to contradict the assessee's account; no judicial authority was invoked to displace the assessee's explanation. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the assessee furnished an explanation that cash-in-hand included marriage gifts and salary accumulated over eight months. The Assessing Officer and first appellate authority rejected the explanation primarily on suspicion rather than evidentiary contradiction. The Tribunal stressed that absent contrary material disproving the claimed source, mere suspicion or implausibility is insufficient to sustain an addition under section 69A. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where an assessee provides a plausible explanation for cash-in-hand (marriage gifts/salary) and the revenue does not bring contradictory evidence, the explanation must be accepted for purposes of section 69A. Obiter - The assessment authorities' reliance on conjecture regarding credibility without evidentiary support is inappropriate. Conclusion: The Tribunal accepted the explanation of marriage gifts and accumulated salary in respect of the cash-in-hand and found the addition unjustified on that ground. Issue 3: Relevance of delay in depositing cash and transportation risk as basis to disbelieve explanation Legal framework: Credibility of explanation under section 69A may be challenged by evidence of improbability or circumstances inconsistent with the explanation; delay or mode of transport alone does not ipso facto render an explanation invalid unless corroborated by material showing concealment or fabrication. Precedent treatment: No distinct precedent was applied; the Tribunal analyzed the relevance of delay and travel in the factual matrix. Interpretation and reasoning: The revenue emphasised (a) a 117-day gap between withdrawal and deposit and (b) the long-distance movement of cash (approx. 345 km) instead of electronic transfer, to impugn the explanation. The Tribunal held that such factors, without supporting evidence that the cash was from an illicit or unexplained source, are speculative. Concerns regarding safety, security, and choice of transport are insufficient bases for discrediting a demonstrated nexus between lawful withdrawal from matured FDs and later bank deposits or for rejecting the claimed origin as gifts/salary. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Delay in depositing cash and the fact of physical transportation, standing alone and unsupported by contradictory evidence, do not justify additions under section 69A. Obiter - Practical improbabilities or subjective discomfort of revenue officers cannot substitute for positive evidence. Conclusion: The Tribunal rejected the relevance of delay and transportation risk as adequate grounds to sustain the addition; those considerations did not overturn the established nexus and acceptable explanation. Overall Conclusion The Tribunal found a direct nexus between withdrawal of matured fixed deposits and subsequent bank deposits, accepted the assessee's explanation (marriage gifts and accumulated salary) in the absence of contrary evidence, held that delay and transport-related suspicions were speculative and insufficient, and accordingly deleted the addition made under section 69A to the extent of Rs. 22,60,000. The appeal was partly allowed on these grounds.