Bank deposits during demonetisation found to be proceeds of genuine sales; additions under section 69A deleted

ITAT, MUMBAI (AT) held that bank deposits during demonetization represented proceeds of genuine sales already reflected in books and taxed, and deleted additions under s.69A. The Tribunal found AO's and CIT(A)'s reliance on third-party denials and imputed 20% gross profit on certain cash sales to be conjectural and impermissible, observing that once turnover and profit are accepted, no further notional profit can be grafted. The presence of TCS, VAT returns, audited accounts and reconciliations corroborated genuineness. Revenue's appeal dismissed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether reassessment under sections 147/148 is validly initiated and supported by cogent reasons or rests on mere suspicion.

2. Whether deposits of specified bank notes (SBNs) during demonetisation, recorded in bank accounts, can be treated as unexplained cash under section 69A when corresponding sales are recorded in books, VAT returns and audited accounts.

3. Whether third-party denials in response to section 133(6) notices can, by themselves, justify treating recorded sales as fabricated and sustaining additions.

4. Whether books of account not rejected under section 145 can be discarded and entries treated as fabricated without recording cogent reasons.

5. Whether it is permissible to make an addition by applying a notional gross profit rate (20%) on alleged cash sales-when the turnover is accepted in accounts and tax/TCS has been collected-resulting effectively in double taxation.

6. Whether section 115BBE or any machinery provision can be used to enlarge the ambit of section 69A so as to tax sums already recorded and offered to tax.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Validity of reassessment under sections 147/148 (Legal framework and sufficiency of reasons)

Legal framework: Reassessment under sections 147/148 requires formation of a belief supported by material indicating escapement of income; reasons recorded must be cogent and not rest on mere suspicion.

Precedent Treatment: No specific precedents were cited by the authorities; the Tribunal evaluates compliance with statutory requirement of recording cogent reasons.

Interpretation and reasoning: The AO initiated enquiries on a Tax Evasion Petition and noted large cash deposits in SBNs. However, AO failed to point to any specific discrepancy in books, did not reject books under section 145, and did not undertake independent corroborative inquiry. The reopening thus rested on suspicion without cogent documentary or evidentiary foundation demonstrating escapement of income.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - reassessment cannot stand when reasons are speculative and unsupported by specific discrepancies; Obiter - observations on practical realities of demonetisation and cash business context.

Conclusion: Reopening and additions premised on the AO's uncorroborated suspicion are not legally sustainable; reassessment lacked the necessary evidential foundation to justify additions.

Issue 2 - Treatment of SBN deposits during demonetisation vis-à-vis section 69A

Legal framework: Section 69A treats sums found credited in books or bank accounts as income from undisclosed sources unless satisfactorily explained; recorded transactions, corroborated by books, VAT returns and audited accounts, can constitute a satisfactory explanation.

Precedent Treatment: The authorities relied on suspicion about SBNs; no binding precedent was cited to hold SBN deposits ipso facto unexplained.

Interpretation and reasoning: Mere fact of deposits being in SBNs during demonetisation does not automatically render them unexplained if the assessee demonstrates that deposits originated from recorded cash sales, with reconciliation of cash balance as on 08.11.2016 and corroboration through VAT returns, invoices, purchases through banking channels and audited accounts. The AO did not rebut the reconciliation or prove that recorded sales were fictitious.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - SBN character of deposits alone is insufficient to treat bank credits as unexplained under section 69A when corroborative records and reconciliations exist; Obiter - comments on demonetisation context and administrative suspicion.

Conclusion: Deposits in SBNs that are reconciled with recorded cash sales and supported by statutory filings cannot be treated as unexplained under section 69A solely on account of their being SBNs.

Issue 3 - Reliance on third-party denials under section 133(6)

Legal framework: Statements or denials by third parties may be relevant but cannot, without more, override maintained and audited books; the tax authority must undertake independent inquiry or confront the assessee with denials for verification.

Precedent Treatment: No specific authorities were cited that permit third-party denials to displace documented accounts absent corroboration.

Interpretation and reasoning: Commercial practice can lead buyers to repudiate transactions when faced with notices; many recipients sought time rather than outright denial; AO neither confronted the assessee with denials nor conducted independent checks. Therefore third-party denials, unsupported by further investigation, are insufficient to treat recorded sales as fabricated.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - third-party denials alone do not justify displacing audited books; Obiter - observations on buyers' incentives to disown transactions when scrutinised.

Conclusion: AO's adverse reliance on denials of 13 parties did not constitute adequate proof of fabrication and could not sustain additions.

Issue 4 - Effect of non-rejection of books under section 145

Legal framework: If books are not rejected under section 145, entries therein are prima facie presumed correct unless cogent reasons for rejection are recorded; AO cannot lightly discard entries without recording reasons to reject accounts as incorrect or incomplete.

Precedent Treatment: No case law was invoked by the authorities to justify discarding books absent formal rejection under section 145.

Interpretation and reasoning: AO did not formally reject books but asserted they "appear to be fabricated" without specifying discrepancies. Such bald assertions do not amount to recorded reasons required to undermine books. The CIT(A) accepted books in principle, reinforcing that entries remained unimpeached by recorded findings of incorrectness or incompleteness.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - books not rejected under section 145 cannot be discarded based on vague assertions; Obiter - procedural requirement of confronting the assessee for cross-verification.

Conclusion: The absence of formal rejection of books of account renders AO's treatment of entries as fabricated legally unsound.

Issue 5 - Legitimacy of estimating/addition by applying a notional gross profit rate on accepted turnover (double taxation objection)

Legal framework: Additions by estimation require foundational infirmity in declared turnover or undisclosed income; when turnover is recorded, accepted and already subjected to taxation (including TCS/TDS/VAT), imputing an additional notional profit on the same turnover without demonstrating undisclosed income amounts to double taxation.

Precedent Treatment: The CIT(A) applied a 20% gross profit on alleged cash sales of certain parties to sustain partial addition; no authoritative basis for the specific rate was recorded in the reasoning.

Interpretation and reasoning: Where turnover stands accepted in accounts and profits on such turnover have been declared and taxed, there is no legal basis to graft a further layer of notional profit because some buyers subsequently denied transactions. Estimations cannot be used to tax the same element twice. Moreover, TCS was collected on these sales, and statutory filings corroborate the taxability already having been addressed.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - estimating a notional gross profit to add to income when turnover and profit have been recorded and taxed is impermissible and results in double taxation; Obiter - comment that AO must demonstrate why declared basis is unreliable before making estimations.

Conclusion: Application of a 20% gross profit estimate on accepted turnover was unjustified; the additional tax imposed on that basis is unsustainable.

Issue 6 - Role of section 115BBE and limits on machinery provisions enlarging substantive charge

Legal framework: Section 115BBE is a charging/machinery provision aimed at taxing specified incomes; machinery provisions cannot be used to enlarge the substantive scope of other charging sections beyond legislative intent.

Precedent Treatment: The assessee contended that section 115BBE cannot be used to expand section 69A; the authorities did not rely on section 115BBE to justify additions.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that invoking a machinery provision to create a deeming fiction that taxes sums already credited and offered to tax is impermissible. The objective of section 115BBE (curbing laundering via basic exemption) cannot be stretched to override the settled principle that recorded and taxed amounts are not to be treated as unexplained merely because of their denomination during demonetisation.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - machinery provisions cannot be employed to enlarge the substantive charge so as to tax sums already recorded and subjected to tax under other provisions; Obiter - policy remarks on purpose of section 115BBE.

Conclusion: Section 115BBE cannot be used to expand section 69A to tax recorded and previously taxed sales; no warrant existed to apply it so as to justify additions.

Overall Conclusion

The AO's additions totalling Rs.5.10 crores under section 69A and the CIT(A)'s partial sustainment (Rs.19,93,430 by estimating 20% GP) were founded on suspicion, uncorroborated third-party denials, and the SBN character of deposits rather than cogent evidential findings. Books were not rejected under section 145, reconciliations and statutory filings (VAT, audited accounts, TCS) supported genuineness of sales, and estimative additions resulted in double taxation. Accordingly, the entire addition was deleted. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

---