Section 69A addition on demonetization cash deposits deleted, cash sales and proper books accepted as explanation

The ITAT Delhi-AT allowed the assessee's appeal and deleted the addition u/s 69A arising from cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were duly explained by contemporaneous cash sales, distress sale strategy, liquidation of prior closing stock, and a business shift toward over-the-counter cash transactions. Properly maintained books of account and cash book supported the cash movement and deposits. The AO's method of allowing credit only for prior year deposits was found arbitrary and unsupported by the business facts, and the CIT(A) erred in upholding it.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the delay of 423 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal deserved condonation on showing reasonable and bona fide cause.

1.2 Whether the cash deposits made during the demonetization period, added as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were in fact explained by recorded cash sales and books of account, warranting deletion of the addition.

1.3 Whether, in the facts of the case, the approach of the Assessing Officer and the first appellate authority in partially accepting and partially rejecting cash deposits, without proper verification of books and business pattern, was sustainable.

1.4 Whether it was necessary, in the present case, to decide the legal contentions relating to absence of enquiry under section 142(2) and non-rejection of books under section 145(3), or the appeal could be decided purely on factual merits.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal

Interpretation and reasoning

2.1 The Tribunal noted that the appeal was delayed by 423 days and that the assessee had filed an affidavit and detailed written submissions explaining the reasons. The core explanation was that: (i) submissions before the first appellate authority had been uploaded in September 2021, but the order was passed only in October 2023 after a gap of about 760 days; (ii) the erstwhile counsel did not keep track of the online portal for pronouncement of the order; (iii) the assessee had wound up business and was dependent on an accountant who was not technologically adept with the e-proceedings; and (iv) there was no ex parte order at lower stages and the assessee had otherwise been compliant.

2.2 The Tribunal considered that the delay stemmed from lapse on the side of the representative in monitoring the portal and not from any mala fide or deliberate inaction by the assessee. Judicial precedents cited by the assessee, though not individually discussed in detail, were taken into account for the principle that lapses of counsel, where bona fide, should not cause substantial injustice to a litigant.

Conclusions

2.3 The Tribunal held that there was "reasonable cause" for the delay in filing the appeal and accordingly condoned the delay, proceeding to decide the appeal on merits.

Issue 2: Justification for addition under section 69A in respect of cash deposits during demonetization

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.4 The Assessing Officer invoked section 69A of the Act to treat a portion of cash deposits in the assessee's bank account during the demonetization period as "unexplained money". The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this approach, holding that the cash deposits were abnormally high compared to earlier years and not satisfactorily linked to recorded cash sales.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.5 The Assessing Officer noted total cash deposits of Rs. 78,00,000 during the year, of which Rs. 75,00,000 fell in the demonetization period, and compared this with cash deposits of Rs. 22,38,000 in the immediately preceding year. Without examining the books of account, he allowed credit equivalent to the prior year's cash deposit (Rs. 22,38,000) and treated the balance Rs. 52,62,000 as unexplained under section 69A, on the ground of "unusual, unexplained and drastically" higher deposits.

2.6 The Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the addition mainly on the reasoning that: (i) cash deposits during the year were about 80.82% of total sales, an abnormal increase compared to earlier years; (ii) the assessee did not, according to him, produce books or supporting evidences before the appellate authority; (iii) even if books were rejected and income estimated, the returned income would not change materially, so rejection of books was only a technical aspect.

2.7 The Tribunal scrutinised the factual matrix and found that: (i) in preceding three financial years, the assessee's turnovers were approximately Rs. 7.80 crores, Rs. 6.03 crores and Rs. 8.88 crores respectively, with comparatively low percentages of cash deposits to sales; (ii) in the relevant year, total turnover sharply declined to Rs. 96,51,421; (iii) within this, credit sales were about Rs. 21,21,000 and cash sales about Rs. 75,29,803; (iv) cash deposits during the year were Rs. 78,00,000, out of which Rs. 3,00,000 were pre-demonetization and Rs. 75,00,000 were during demonetization, broadly matching the cash sales figure.

2.8 The Tribunal noted that the assessee had maintained books of account and cash book, and had explained that, because of a sharp downturn and a "distress sale" strategy, the business model for the year shifted heavily towards over-the-counter cash sales to liquidate stock and reduce creditors. It was also noted that the assessee had liquidated the closing stock of the immediately preceding year and sold current year purchases, showing stock movement and reduction in creditors.

2.9 The Tribunal observed that no clear or reasoned verification of the assessee's books or cash book was made by the Assessing Officer while making the addition. The methodology of giving blanket credit to cash deposits only to the extent of the previous year's deposits, without correlating to the changed turnover and sales pattern in the year under consideration, was found to be arbitrary and not supported by proper examination of business facts.

2.10 The Tribunal held that, on the material placed, the assessee's explanation that the cash deposits emanated from recorded cash sales was consistent with the books and cash book, and that the authorities had failed to dislodge this factual explanation. The mere fact that cash deposits were a higher percentage of a much lower turnover in the relevant year, when considered with the explained business shift and distress sale, did not by itself justify treating a part of such deposits as unexplained.

2.11 The Tribunal also did not find any justification in the approach of accepting a portion of cash deposits as explained and the balance as unexplained merely by reference to prior year's deposit levels, particularly when the entire turnover, including cash sales, had been accepted and the cash book supported the deposits.

Conclusions

2.12 On the facts, the Tribunal concluded that the cash deposits during the demonetization period were satisfactorily explained as arising from the recorded cash sales and duly maintained books of account and cash book. The Assessing Officer's partial disallowance and the Commissioner (Appeals)'s confirmation were found to be based on unjustified comparisons and without proper appreciation of the changed business pattern and stock/sales data.

2.13 The addition of Rs. 52,62,000 made under section 69A was held to be unsustainable on merits and was deleted in full.

Issue 3: Sustainability of the authorities' approach in absence of enquiry and rejection of books; need to decide legal grounds

Interpretation and reasoning

2.14 The assessee had raised several legal contentions: (i) that no enquiry under section 142(2) was conducted; (ii) that books of account were not called for or examined; (iii) that the authorities could not treat cash deposits as unexplained without first rejecting the audited books under section 145(3); and (iv) that the first appellate authority's remark that books were "found incorrect" was made without ever requisitioning them.

2.15 The Tribunal recorded these contentions and also noted the reliance placed on various judicial precedents, including the decision of the Supreme Court in Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram and other Tribunal and High Court decisions on the necessity of rejecting books before treating recorded cash as unexplained.

2.16 However, the Tribunal expressly confined itself to the factual adjudication of the issue, observing that the factual position was directly in favour of the assessee on the merits. It therefore considered it unnecessary, in the present appeal, to render findings on the broader legal issues regarding section 142(2), section 145(3), or the general legal consequences of not rejecting books.

Conclusions

2.17 The Tribunal allowed the appeal on factual merits alone and deleted the addition under section 69A, specifically leaving the other legal issues and arguments raised by the assessee "open", without adjudication.

---