Wrong charging provision and non-application of mind made cash-deposit additions arbitrary and legally unsustainable.

Cash-deposit additions were held unsustainable where the Revenue proceeded on an incorrect charging provision and failed to apply the statutory ingredients to the facts. The Tribunal noted that the assessment and first appellate order treated the deposits as taxable under Section 68 without a coherent factual enquiry into source and nature, and that this reflected non-application of mind. Applying co-ordinate Bench decisions and the principle of consistency, it held that an assessment framed on a wrong and misplaced provision, without sound reasoning, is arbitrary and bad in law. The addition and appellate order were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the addition relating to cash deposits could be sustained when the Revenue authorities invoked an incorrect charging provision and acted without proper application of mind.

Analysis: The assessment and the first appellate order proceeded on the footing that the cash deposits were to be taxed under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, although the factual enquiry related to the source and nature of cash deposits. The Tribunal found that the Department had not demonstrated how the ingredients of the invoked provision applied to the assessee's case and that the impugned order suffered from non-application of mind. Following its earlier co-ordinate Bench decisions and the principle of consistency, it held that an assessment framed on a wrong and misplaced charging provision, without coherent reasoning, is arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

Conclusion: The addition and the appellate order were held to be bad in law and were quashed.

---