2025 (5) TMI 1242 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69A - cash deposited in the bank unexplained - HELD THAT - We observed that the case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of cash deposits in its bank account and assessee has explained the sources of cash deposits which enclosed business receipts and agricultural income. AO has accepted the same however rejected the cash deposits out of cash withdrawals. Before us assessee brought to our notice that during the year assessee has withdrawn cash of Rs. 23, 97, 300/- and re-deposited out of withdrawals are only Rs. 6, 45, 600/-. In our considered view there are enough cash withdrawals made by the assessee during the year and there are chances of re-depositing the same. Therefore there are sufficient cash withdrawals to support the submissions of the assessee. Allow the grounds raised by the assessee.

Summary

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal should be condoned on grounds of the assessee's medical condition and other disabilities.

2. Whether the reopening of the assessment under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified and valid.

3. Whether the addition of Rs. 6,45,600/- under section 69A for unexplained cash deposits in the bank account was justified, given the assessee's explanation that the cash deposits were out of cash withdrawals made during the year.

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Tribunal has the jurisdiction to condone delay in filing appeals if sufficient cause or reasonable cause is shown under the relevant procedural rules. Medical incapacity and mental health issues have been recognized as valid grounds for condonation of delay in various precedents.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The assessee submitted that due to a neuro-psychiatric condition (schizophrenia), hypertension, and other disorders, there was a genuine inability to file the appeal within time. Supporting medical evidence including prescriptions and an affidavit were placed on record. The Revenue opposed the condonation.

Key evidence and findings: The medical documents and affidavit substantiated the claim of mental and physical health issues affecting memory and capability.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal found that the delay of 439 days was caused by a reasonable and genuine cause related to the assessee's health conditions.

Treatment of competing arguments: While the Revenue urged dismissal, the Tribunal gave weight to medical evidence and the principle of substantial justice over procedural technicality.

Conclusion: Delay in filing the appeal was condoned.

Issue 2: Validity of Reopening Assessment under Section 148

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 148 permits reopening of assessment if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The reopening must be based on credible information or material.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The reopening was triggered by information received from the Annual Information Return (AIR) regarding cash deposits of Rs. 33,14,600/- in the assessee's bank account during FY 2011-12. This constituted a valid reason to reopen the case.

Key evidence and findings: The AIR data was the basis for reopening. The assessee was given opportunity to respond and submit details of cash deposits and sources.

Application of law to facts: The reopening was found to be legally valid as it was based on credible information indicative of undisclosed income.

Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee challenged reopening, but the Tribunal did not find any infirmity in the procedure or reason for reopening.

Conclusion: The reopening under section 148 was justified.

Issue 3: Addition under Section 69A for Cash Deposits

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 69A applies to unexplained cash credits, deposits, or investments. The burden lies on the assessee to satisfactorily explain the source of cash deposits. If the explanation is accepted, no addition is warranted.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The assessee declared sources of cash deposits as business receipts, agricultural income, old balance, and cash withdrawals from the same bank account. The AO accepted the first three sources but rejected the explanation for cash deposits made out of cash withdrawals, making an addition of Rs. 6,45,600/-.

Key evidence and findings: The assessee produced bank statements showing cash withdrawals aggregating Rs. 23,97,300/- during the year and argued that the disputed cash deposits of Rs. 6,45,600/- were out of these withdrawals. The AO and CIT(A) did not accept this explanation, holding that no new evidence was brought on record.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal carefully examined the bank transactions and found that the volume of cash withdrawals was sufficient to cover the cash deposits in question. The possibility of redepositing withdrawn cash was reasonable and supported by the documentary evidence.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue relied on the AO and CIT(A) findings, emphasizing lack of evidence on purpose of withdrawal and redeposit. The Tribunal gave greater weight to the bank records and the logical explanation advanced by the assessee.

Conclusion: The addition under section 69A was not justified and was set aside. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on this ground.

Significant holdings and core principles established:

"There are enough cash withdrawals made by the assessee during the year and there are chances of re-depositing the same. Therefore, there are sufficient cash withdrawals to support the submissions of the assessee."

This principle underscores that cash withdrawn from bank accounts can be redeposited, and if supported by bank records, such redeposits cannot be treated as unexplained cash deposits attracting addition under section 69A.

The Tribunal also reinforced the principle that medical incapacity and mental health issues constitute reasonable cause for condonation of delay in filing appeals, emphasizing the importance of substantive justice over procedural technicalities.

Finally, the Tribunal confirmed that reopening of assessment under section 148 is valid if based on credible information such as AIR data indicating undisclosed income.

On the issues raised, the Tribunal held as follows:

1. Delay in filing appeal was condoned due to reasonable cause.

2. Reopening of assessment under section 148 was valid.

3. Addition of Rs. 6,45,600/- under section 69A was not justified and was deleted.