2025 (5) TMI 1554 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessments - reason to believe on the receipt of new information viz cash deposits from Investigation Wing - disclosure of the assessee s income by the Hon ble ITSC - HELD THAT - Before the Hon ble ITSC the assessee had rejected its own books and offered income @9% in respect of the contract work performed by it and at a lower rate of 5% where it acted as a sub-contractor and 2.85% in case the contract work was further given to sub-contractors. The same has been accepted as a full and true disclosure of the assessee s income by the Hon ble ITSC. Accordingly we are of the opinion that the department ought to have approached the Hon ble ITSC in case it was of the view that full and true disclosure of income had not been made by the assessee and the entries in the bank account are undisclosed are not covered therein. The revised cross objections of the assessee that Ld. AO had no power to reopen the assessment passed in compliance with ITSC order u/s 245D is allowed. Thus even on merits the decision of CIT(A) is justified and no interference is called for on this account also. Accordingly we dismiss the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue with regard to the merits of the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Addition u/s 68 - Genuineness of the transaction is proved by the fact that the payment to the assessee as well as repayment of the loan by the assessee to the depositors is made by account payee cheques and the interest is also paid by the assessee to the creditors by account payee cheques.AO is directed to delete the addition made as unexplained credit u/s.68.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in these appeals and cross objections are as follows:

- Whether the reopening of assessments under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was valid or amounted to a change of opinion, particularly when the reopening was based on purported new information such as cash deposits reported by the Investigation Wing or other sources.

- Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) had a valid reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, justifying reopening beyond the normal four-year period, especially in light of prior assessments completed under section 143(3) and disclosures made before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) under section 245D.

- Whether additions made under section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts were justified, considering the explanations and evidences furnished by the assessee regarding the source and nature of such deposits.

- Whether loans received by the assessee from third parties, such as M/s. Chaturbhuj Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. and others, were genuine and properly evidenced to discharge the onus under section 68 of the Act.

- Whether the ITSC's order under section 245D(4), accepting the assessee's offer of additional income and deeming full and true disclosure, precluded reopening of assessments on the same or related issues by the AO.

- The applicability and scope of the "telescoping" theory in explaining cash deposits and withdrawals in bank accounts for the purpose of assessing unexplained credits under section 68.

- The legal effect of prior finalization of income by the ITSC on subsequent reassessment proceedings.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of Reopening of Assessments under Section 147

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 147 permits reopening of assessment if the AO has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The first proviso to section 147 restricts reopening beyond four years unless there is failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The Supreme Court and various High Courts have held that reopening should not be based on mere change of opinion but on tangible material or new information.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined whether the AO had credible material or new information warranting reopening. It was noted that the reopening was based on information about cash deposits from the Investigation Wing or DCIT. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had already made full and true disclosure of income before the ITSC, which had accepted the additional income offered. The ITSC order under section 245D(4) was held to be conclusive regarding the matters stated therein.

The Tribunal emphasized that if the AO believed that the assessee had not made full and true disclosure, the AO's proper recourse was to approach the ITSC for declaring the settlement void, not to reopen assessments independently. The reopening was thus held to be illegal and a mere change of opinion.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee's disclosures before the ITSC, the acceptance of additional income, and the absence of any failure to disclose material facts were crucial. The AO's reliance on cash deposit information post-ITSC order was insufficient to justify reopening.

Application of Law to Facts: Since the ITSC order was final and binding on the matters disclosed, the AO lacked jurisdiction to reopen assessments on the same issues. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings accordingly.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The revenue argued that the ITSC order did not cover the unexplained cash deposits and hence reopening was justified. The Tribunal rejected this, noting that the ITSC's acceptance of income included the relevant periods and related transactions, and the AO should have approached the ITSC instead.

Conclusion: Reopening of assessments under section 147 was invalid and amounted to change of opinion without new credible material, especially post ITSC order.

Issue 2: Additions under Section 68 on Account of Unexplained Cash Deposits

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 68 requires the assessee to explain the nature and source of unexplained credits. Courts have recognized the "telescoping" theory, whereby cash withdrawals and deposits are viewed in aggregate to ascertain whether deposits are genuinely explained.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the AO had made additions without properly considering the withdrawals from the bank account, which were of a higher amount than deposits, indicating that the deposits were out of withdrawals made. The Tribunal held that the AO erred in not applying the telescoping theory.

The assessee explained that cash withdrawals were necessitated by the nature of its business (road construction), where payments to laborers were made in cash, and cheques issued to mukkadams who returned the money after clearance. The Tribunal accepted these explanations as reasonable and supported by documentary evidence.

Key Evidence and Findings: Bank statements showing withdrawals exceeding deposits, explanations of business operations requiring cash payments, and absence of contradictory evidence from the AO.

Application of Law to Facts: Applying the telescoping theory and considering the nature of business, the Tribunal concluded that the cash deposits were satisfactorily explained and did not warrant addition under section 68.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The revenue contended that the deposits were unexplained and not supported by evidence. The Tribunal rejected this, noting the AO's failure to consider withdrawals and the credible explanations provided.

Conclusion: Additions on account of unexplained cash deposits were deleted.

Issue 3: Additions under Section 68 on Account of Loans from Third Parties

Legal Framework and Precedents: For loans to be accepted as genuine under section 68, the assessee must establish the identity, creditworthiness of the lender, and genuineness of the transaction. Payment through banking channels, loan confirmations, and interest payments with TDS deduction are relevant evidences. The Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. Rohinin Builders (256 ITR 360) was relied upon, which held that genuineness is proved when payments and repayments are made by account payee cheques and interest is paid similarly.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished loan confirmations, bank statements showing RTGS transfers, and evidence of interest payments with TDS deduction. The lender was a PAN holder and filed returns, establishing creditworthiness.

Key Evidence and Findings: Loan confirmation letters, bank statements evidencing RTGS receipt, interest payment proofs with TDS deduction, and lender's tax compliance records.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that the primary onus of establishing identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness was discharged by the assessee. The AO's addition was therefore unwarranted.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The revenue argued that the loan was dubious and unverifiable. The Tribunal rejected this, relying on the documentary evidence and legal precedents.

Conclusion: Additions on account of loans from third parties were deleted.

Issue 4: Effect of ITSC Order under Section 245D(4) on Reassessment Proceedings

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 245D(4) provides that the ITSC's order is final and binding as regards the matters stated therein. The Supreme Court and various High Courts have held that once the Settlement Commission's order is passed, reopening on the same issues is barred unless the Commission itself declares the order void for failure to make full and true disclosure.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal held that since the assessee had made full and true disclosure before the ITSC and the ITSC had accepted the additional income, the AO had no jurisdiction to reopen assessments on the same or related issues. The AO's proper remedy was to approach the ITSC to seek declaration of voidance if non-disclosure was suspected.

Key Evidence and Findings: ITSC order dated 12.12.2013 accepting additional income, absence of any finding of non-disclosure by the ITSC, and the assessee's compliance with ITSC proceedings.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal quashed reassessment proceedings initiated after the ITSC order, holding them illegal and barred by the finality of the ITSC's decision.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The revenue argued that the ITSC order did not cover certain cash deposits. The Tribunal rejected this, noting that the ITSC's acceptance was comprehensive and covered the relevant periods and transactions.

Conclusion: The ITSC order precluded reopening of assessments by the AO on the same issues.

Issue 5: Application of Telescoping Theory in Explaining Cash Deposits and Withdrawals

Legal Framework and Precedents: The telescoping theory is a principle recognized by Courts and Tribunals whereby cash withdrawals and deposits are considered together to determine whether deposits are unexplained. The theory prevents double counting of cash flows and recognizes the cyclical nature of cash transactions in business.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the AO failed to apply the telescoping theory properly, ignoring the fact that withdrawals exceeded deposits, which explained the source of cash deposits. The Tribunal relied on precedents from various ITAT decisions supporting the application of telescoping.

Key Evidence and Findings: Bank statements showing monthly cash withdrawals and deposits, explanations of business cash flow requirements.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the telescoping theory and concluded that the deposits were explained by prior withdrawals, negating the basis for addition under section 68.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The revenue argued that withdrawals were not available for redeposit. The Tribunal rejected this, noting absence of evidence and the logical business explanation.

Conclusion: Telescoping theory applied to delete additions on unexplained cash deposits.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- "The department ought to have approached the Hon'ble ITSC, in case it was of the view that full and true disclosure of income had not been made by the assessee and the entries in the bank account are undisclosed are not covered therein."

- "Once the Settlement Commission has completed its proceedings as per section 245-I, its order is considered conclusive as regards the matter stated therein, and reopening in respect of matters covered therein would be barred."

- "The AO ought to have given a clear finding regarding withdrawals made by the appellant during the year under consideration. Therefore, in view of the facts of the present case, there are debit entries in the bank statement of the appellant. The addition of entire deposits as unexplained was not justified."

- "The genuineness of the transaction is proved by the fact that the payment to the assessee as well as repayment of the loan by the assessee to the depositors is made by account payee cheques and the interest is also paid by the assessee to the creditors by account payee cheques."

- "Upon perusal of above documents, the primary onus of establishing the identity of the lender, proving its creditworthiness and to establish the genuineness of the transactions was duly been discharged by the appellant."

- "The reopening of assessments under section 147 was held to be illegal and a mere change of opinion without new credible material, especially post ITSC order."

- The Tribunal dismissed all appeals of the revenue and allowed the cross objections of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12 through 2015-16, affirming the deletions of additions and quashing of reassessment proceedings where applicable.