Cash withdrawals from disclosed bank account not 'unexplained money'; addition under Section 69A deleted as unsustainable

ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessee's appeal and deleted the addition made u/s 69A on cash withdrawals from a disclosed savings bank account. The Tribunal held that withdrawals from an accounted bank account, duly recorded in regular books not rejected by the AO, cannot be treated as "unexplained money" absent independent evidence of diversion to unaccounted purposes. The statutory presumption under s.69A applies only where ownership of unexplained money is found, not to routine bank withdrawals linked to recorded business transactions. Given the documented business exigency under a regulated CSC/SBI framework and accepted books and registers, the revenue failed to discharge its burden, rendering the impugned addition unsustainable.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether cash withdrawals from a disclosed savings bank account could be treated as "unexplained money" and taxed under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the absence of rejection of books of account or evidence of diversion for undisclosed purposes.

1.2 Whether the authorities were justified in sustaining the addition under section 69A without properly considering the documentary evidence explaining the nature and purpose of the cash withdrawals in connection with authorised Customer Service Centre operations of a bank.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Taxability of cash withdrawals as unexplained money under section 69A

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.1 The addition was made under section 69A of the Act treating cash withdrawals as "unexplained money" and taxed under section 115BBE, with initiation of penalty under section 271AAC. The Court noted that section 69A applies where money is found to be owned by the assessee and for which no satisfactory explanation about its nature and source is offered. The provision vests discretion in the Assessing Officer, and its application must be grounded in material indicating that the sum represents income of the assessee.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.2 The Court found that the assessee was an authorised Customer Service Centre (CSC) operator of a bank through a technology partner under a formal agreement, duly evidenced by the CSC agreement and related documents. The assessee maintained and operated bank accounts with the concerned bank and another bank for facilitation of withdrawals and disbursements to customers in a remote village.

2.3 The assessee produced bank statements of multiple accounts, a CSC cash transaction register, and sample receipts to show the flow of funds: credits from bank customers to the account(s), transfer of funds between accounts, and subsequent cash withdrawals for disbursement to such customers. The cash register maintained under directions of the bank, containing transaction-wise details and customer signatures, was part of this evidentiary record.

2.4 The Court observed that the Assessing Officer did not dispute (a) the existence or genuineness of the bank accounts, (b) the fact of the assessee's authorised CSC role, or (c) the maintenance of books of account. Nor were the books rejected, nor was any adverse material or third-party verification brought on record to show that the recorded entries were false or that the withdrawals were not used for business or CSC-related purposes.

2.5 The addition was made essentially on the ground that there were high-value cash withdrawals without corresponding immediate cash deposits, and that the explanation for their use was not, in the Assessing Officer's view, satisfactorily supported. The appellate authority confirmed the addition broadly reiterating lack of supporting evidence.

2.6 The Court held that withdrawals from disclosed, genuine bank accounts, reflected in accepted books of account, cannot by themselves be equated with "unexplained money" under section 69A. The statutory presumption under section 69A is attracted to money found to be owned but not recorded or satisfactorily explained, not to routine bank withdrawals which are duly accounted.

2.7 The Court emphasised that where entries relating to such withdrawals and related receipts are made in the regular books and those books are not rejected, the initial burden stands discharged, and the onus shifts to the revenue to establish by positive material that the amounts represent undisclosed income or have been diverted for non-business purposes. Mere absence of "matching" deposits before each withdrawal, or subjective dissatisfaction with the explanation, without any contrary evidence, is insufficient to justify addition under section 69A.

2.8 On the facts, the Court accepted that the assessee's operations formed part of a regulated, bank-supported financial inclusion initiative; the business exigency for maintaining and using the second bank account for withdrawals was demonstrated; and there was no material produced by the revenue to contradict the stated utilisation of cash for CSC payouts.

Conclusions

2.9 The Court concluded that the foundational conditions for invoking section 69A were not satisfied. Cash withdrawals of Rs. 39,83,841/- from disclosed bank accounts, recorded in the books and supported by CSC documentation, could not be treated as unexplained money in the absence of evidence that they represented undisclosed income or were diverted for non-business purposes.

2.10 The addition of Rs. 39,83,841/- under section 69A, and its consequential treatment under section 115BBE with initiation of penalty under section 271AAC, was held to be unsustainable and directed to be deleted.

Issue 2: Non-consideration and misappreciation of evidence by the appellate authority

Interpretation and reasoning

2.11 The Court noted that the assessee had filed a comprehensive reply at the stage of proceedings under section 148A(b), and subsequently furnished an extensive paper book before the appellate authority, including bank statements, CSC agreement, CSC transaction registers, and sample receipts evidencing the pattern and purpose of withdrawals.

2.12 Notwithstanding the presence of such material on record, the appellate authority recorded that "no substantial written submission or documentary evidence" was filed to rebut the addition, and proceeded to uphold the assessment essentially on this premise.

2.13 Upon examining the record, the Court found that these factual submissions and documents were indeed part of the proceedings and had not been appropriately examined on merits. The appellate authority failed to address or rebut the specific evidence and explanations furnished by the assessee regarding the CSC operations, the flow of funds between accounts, and the linkage of withdrawals to customer disbursements.

2.14 The Court therefore concluded that the confirmation of the addition was vitiated by incorrect recording of facts and by non-consideration of material evidence that directly explained the impugned withdrawals.

Conclusions

2.15 The Court held that the authorities were not justified in sustaining the addition under section 69A without properly appreciating and dealing with the documentary evidence and explanations placed on record. The appellate order confirming the addition was set aside to that extent, and the assessee's appeal was allowed by deleting the impugned addition.

---