Cash deposits during demonetisation held explained; addition under Section 68 deleted based on recorded cash sales evidence

ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessee's appeal and deleted the addition made u/s 68 in respect of cash deposits during the demonetization period. The assessee demonstrated that the deposits arose from cash sales already recorded in the books, and provided plausible explanation for increased sales due to seasonal factors in the building material business. The Tribunal held that once prima facie evidence is produced, the burden shifts to the Department, which failed to bring any contrary material on record. A clerical error in opening cash balance was accepted as a bona fide bookkeeping mistake.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether cash deposits made during the demonetization period, claimed to be out of recorded cash sales, could be treated as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income-tax Act.

1.2 Whether the unexplained discrepancy in the opening cash balance in the books justified sustaining an addition under section 68, notwithstanding the assessee's explanation of a clerical error.

1.3 How the burden of proof is to be allocated where the assessee produces books of account, invoices, and VAT records to explain cash deposits as business receipts.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 & 3: Addition under section 68 in respect of demonetization-period cash deposits claimed as cash sales; burden of proof where books, invoices and VAT records support the explanation

Interpretation and reasoning

2.1 The Tribunal noted that the assessee, an HUF engaged in semi-wholesale resale of building material and manufacturing of paver blocks, had duly audited books of account under section 44AB and was also subject to VAT scrutiny. The total turnover for the year under consideration (Rs. 12.12 crores) was slightly higher than that of the preceding year (Rs. 11.93 crores), indicating continuity and growth in business activity.

2.2 During the demonetization period (09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016), the assessee deposited Rs. 1,18,30,436/- in three bank accounts. The Assessing Officer treated Rs. 1,01,94,386/- as unexplained cash credits under section 68, primarily on account of (i) a substantial increase in cash sales during September-November 2016 as compared to the corresponding period in the preceding year, and (ii) the cash balance discrepancy.

2.3 The assessee consistently explained that the cash deposits were out of genuine cash sales duly recorded in the regular books, supported by cash memos and invoices, and reflected in VAT returns that were accepted by the VAT department. Audit under VAT and its finalization in Form 304 were relied upon as corroborative evidence of genuineness.

2.4 The Tribunal recorded that, in assessment, the assessee furnished details of parties from whom cash in excess of Rs. 1 lakh was received, along with dates, amounts and relevant invoices. Despite this prima facie evidentiary support, no further inquiry was carried out by the Assessing Officer to dislodge or contradict the assessee's explanation; no independent material was brought on record to show that the cash deposits emanated from non-business sources.

2.5 The Tribunal applied the "well-settled" principle that once the assessee produces prima facie evidence to support its explanation regarding the nature and source of cash receipts-as business sales recorded in audited books and tax returns-the onus shifts to the Department to rebut such evidence with cogent material. In the absence of such rebuttal, mere suspicion, based on numerical increase in cash sales or pattern of deposits, cannot by itself sustain an addition under section 68.

2.6 On the Assessing Officer's doubt arising from a spike in cash sales in September-November 2016 (constituting a significant share of annual sales) and low cash sales thereafter, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that in the business of building materials, seasonal fluctuations during festive and post-monsoon periods are commercially normal. The Tribunal observed that such pattern, without more, is not per se unusual or suspicious in the context of construction-related trade.

2.7 The Tribunal found no adverse material to show that the recorded sales were fictitious or that the cash deposits were sourced from unaccounted income. The Department did not establish that the invoices and VAT-reported sales were non-genuine or manipulated beyond making general assertions.

Conclusions

2.8 The cash deposits during the demonetization period stood satisfactorily explained as arising from recorded cash sales, supported by audited books, invoices, and accepted VAT records.

2.9 In the absence of any contrary material or enquiries by the Department to rebut the assessee's prima facie evidence, the conditions for invoking section 68 as unexplained cash credits were not met.

2.10 The addition of Rs. 1,01,94,386/- under section 68 was held to be unsustainable and directed to be deleted.

Issue 2: Effect of discrepancy in opening cash balance and claim of clerical error on the sustenance of section 68 addition

Interpretation and reasoning

2.11 The Assessing Officer and the first appellate authority relied, inter alia, on an inconsistency of Rs. 9,37,169/- in the opening cash balance: the books showed an opening cash of Rs. 14.48 lakh, whereas the closing cash as per the previous year's return was Rs. 5.11 lakh.

2.12 The assessee explained that this discrepancy arose due to clerical error and misposting of certain cash receipts while carrying forward balances into the books for the subsequent financial year. It was emphasized that, despite this error in the opening figure, the closing cash balance as on 31.03.2017 was correctly reported and remained unaffected.

2.13 The Tribunal accepted the explanation that the error was a "reasonable human error in book-keeping", noting the absence of evidence to suggest that the misstatement of opening cash was deliberate or motivated by any malafide intention. No link was established between this discrepancy and any specific unaccounted cash deposits.

2.14 The Tribunal treated the cash-balance discrepancy as insufficient on its own to justify characterizing the demonetization-period cash deposits as unexplained credits under section 68, given that the sales and deposits were otherwise supported by documentary records and tax audits, and no contrary evidence was brought by the Department.

Conclusions

2.15 The discrepancy in the opening cash balance, reasonably explained as a clerical/misposting error without demonstrable malafide intent, did not warrant sustaining the section 68 addition.

2.16 The explained nature of the cash deposits as business receipts, coupled with the lack of contrary material, prevailed over the isolated book-keeping error; consequently, the entire addition of Rs. 1,01,94,386/- under section 68 was ordered to be deleted and the appeal of the assessee allowed.

---