2025 (6) TMI 287 - AT - Income Tax

Cash deposits during demonetization period - unexplained cash credits u/s 68 and taxing the same u/s 115BBE - HELD THAT - There is no material taken into consideration or brought on record showing that at any stage the working of the assessee in grant of loans or the acceptance of the repayments of loan have been considered suspicious or otherwise found to be not in conformity with any regulatory measures. Then assessee had provided the details of the deposits along with the loan account head under which these deposits were received. There is substance in the contention of the ld. counsel that as the customers of the assessee are mostly from unorganized sector they may not be having relevant documents for their banking transactions so as to make repayment of loan only by banking mode. It is quite reasonable and prudent explanation that these borrowers of the assessee may be having the demonetized currency notes and which instead of being deposited with the banks were deposited with the assessee for repayment of the outstanding amounts. Even if the outstanding amounts of loan have been deposited in advance that cannot be considered a suspicious activity. Nothing is alleged by the ld. tax authorities on the basis of facts and evidences that the loans themselves were fictitious. We find that the assessee had sought opportunity before AO for providing details on the basis of the record which was not immediately available. Deposit of cash has nothing to do with the demonetization and nothing adverse is established to counter it by the ld. tax authorities below. Assessee had provided copies of four HDFC bank accounts copies showing that deposit in cash in bank account was a routine practice in previous years also Tax authorities below have fallen in error in not appreciating the background of the transactions giving rise to the deposit of cash by the assessee during the demonetization period. Accordingly we are unable to sustain the addition made by the ld. tax authorities below. Assessee appeal allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Appellate Tribunal (AT) in this appeal were:

- Whether the addition of Rs. 2,54,80,348/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of cash deposits during the demonetization period, treated as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), and taxed under section 115BBE, was justified and sustainable in law and on facts.

- Whether the AO and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)] erred in rejecting the explanations and evidences furnished by the assessee regarding the source and nature of the cash deposits.

- Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by the lower authorities in making the addition without proper consideration of the facts and submissions of the assessee.

- Whether the cash deposits made by the assessee, a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) engaged in lending to micro and small businesses predominantly from the unorganized sector, could be regarded as suspicious or unexplained in light of the nature of its business and the regulatory framework under RBI.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue: Validity of addition of cash deposits as unexplained cash credits under section 68 and taxation under section 115BBE

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 68 of the Income Tax Act deals with unexplained cash credits, requiring the assessee to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of such credits. If the explanation is unsatisfactory, the amount is added to the income. Section 115BBE prescribes a special rate of tax on income from unexplained cash credits. The principles of natural justice and evidentiary standards require that the AO must consider the explanations and evidences furnished by the assessee before making an addition.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the facts that the assessee is a registered NBFC regulated by RBI, engaged in lending to customers primarily from the unorganized sector who generally lack formal documentation such as PAN, VAT, or service tax registrations. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that these borrowers repay loans in cash, often using demonetized currency notes held by them during the demonetization period.

The AO's reasons for treating the cash deposits as unexplained included the assessee's failure to provide customer-wise details of outstanding amounts at the start of demonetization, lack of clarity whether EMIs received were due, and the absence of physical files to substantiate the claims. The AO also criticized the delay in furnishing details despite repeated notices.

However, the Tribunal noted that the AO did not allege the loans themselves were fictitious or irregular under RBI regulations. The assessee had provided details of cash deposits linked to loan accounts, copies of bank statements showing routine cash deposits even prior to demonetization, and party-wise loan repayment details with PAN and addresses. The Tribunal found the explanation that borrowers deposited demonetized currency notes as repayment to be reasonable and consistent with the business nature.

Key evidence and findings: The assessee submitted:

• Copies of four HDFC bank accounts showing routine cash deposits in previous years;
• Party-wise details of loan repayments during the relevant period;
• Audited financial statements showing loans and advances without discrepancies;
• Contact details of lenders, investors, and vendors;
• Explanation that cash collections increased during demonetization but not disproportionately compared to previous years.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the provisions of section 68 and the evidentiary standards to assess whether the cash credits were satisfactorily explained. Given the nature of the assessee's business and the evidences furnished, the Tribunal held that the cash deposits were not unexplained credits. The absence of physical files at the time of inquiry was noted but not held sufficient to justify adverse inference, especially since the assessee sought time to compile details and the delay was not deliberate concealment.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue's argument that the deposits were suspicious and unsupported was rejected on the ground that the AO failed to appreciate the business context and the regulatory environment. The Tribunal emphasized that the increase in cash deposits during demonetization was not abnormal relative to prior trends and that no adverse material suggested fictitious loans or money laundering.

Conclusions: The addition of Rs. 2,54,80,348/- as unexplained cash credits under section 68 and taxation under section 115BBE was not sustainable. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities erred in disregarding the assessee's explanations and evidences, and in drawing adverse inferences without proper basis.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal held:

"We are of the considered view that the ld. tax authorities below have fallen in error in not appreciating the background of the transactions giving rise to the deposit of cash by the assessee during the demonetization period."

"There is substance in the contention of the ld. counsel that as the customers of the assessee are mostly from unorganized sector, they may not be having relevant documents for their banking transactions so as to make repayment of loan only by banking mode. It is quite reasonable and prudent explanation that these borrowers of the assessee may be having the demonetized currency notes and which instead of being deposited with the banks were deposited with the assessee for repayment of the outstanding amounts."

"Nothing is alleged by the ld. tax authorities on the basis of facts and evidences that the loans themselves were fictitious."

"Accordingly, we are unable to sustain the addition made by the ld. tax authorities below and consequently allow the grounds raised and the appeal of the assessee is allowed quashing the assessment order."

Core principles established include:

• The burden on the assessee under section 68 to explain cash credits must be evaluated in the context of the nature of business and regulatory framework;
• Reasonable explanations supported by contemporaneous records and consistent with business practices must be accepted;
• Delay in furnishing physical documents may not justify adverse inference if explanations are genuine and the assessee cooperates;
• Cash deposits by borrowers from unorganized sectors during demonetization, when explained as repayments in demonetized currency, cannot be treated as unexplained credits without contrary evidence;
• The AO and appellate authorities must apply principles of natural justice and consider all evidences before making additions under section 68 and taxing under section 115BBE.