9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (6) TMI 1527 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - cash deposit during demonetization in bank account unexplained - HELD THAT - CIT(A) has acknowledged that the cash deposits in the bank account made by the assessee were partly out of business sales and partly out of opening cash balance. CIT(A) has not brought on record any material to doubt the genuineness of business sales and the genuineness of opening cash balance. Without any reference to any material to doubt the genuineness of business sales and the opening cash the CIT(A) has still confirmed an addition on ad hoc and estimation basis. However there is no material to support the aforesaid estimation. CIT(A) has stated in his order that he was confirming the aforesaid addition to safeguard the interest of Revenue. This approach that the CIT(A) was to protect the interest of Revenue is disapproved. It is no job of the CIT(A) to protect the interest of Revenue. His job is to decide the appeal in accordance with law. When in the present case there is no material to support the addition or to doubt either the opening cash balance or business sales there was no basis for confirming the addition - Assessee appeal allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this appeal include:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of Reopening of Assessment under Section 147 Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 147 of the Income Tax Act empowers the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment if he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The reopening must be based on recorded reasons that demonstrate application of mind and independent satisfaction. Reliance was placed on precedents including the decision in Devki Nandan Bindal v. Income-tax Officer, which held that reopening based on inconsistent or wrong information without application of mind is invalid. Also, Madan Mohan Tiwari vs ITO emphasized that reopening based on wrong information known to the Assessing Officer is not sustainable. The Gujarat High Court decision in Filco Trade Centre (P.) Ltd. elaborated on the principles governing reopening, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer must form an independent and subjective satisfaction based on tangible material and not merely rely on third-party or investigation reports. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the reopening was triggered by information from the investigation wing stating cash deposits of Rs. 35,10,000/-, which was incorrect. The actual cash deposited was Rs. 16,50,000/-, as supported by bank statements and certificates. The Assessing Officer issued the notice mechanically without verifying the bank records or applying independent mind. The Court noted that the reopening notice under section 148 was issued on the basis of defective reasons and wrong information, rendering it invalid and void. Key evidence and findings: Bank statements, bank certificates, VAT returns, sales details, and audited books of accounts were submitted by the assessee showing genuine business transactions and cash deposits of Rs. 16,50,000/-. The Assessing Officer ignored these evidences. Application of law to facts: The Court held that the Assessing Officer failed to form independent satisfaction and relied on incorrect third-party information without investigation or application of mind, violating settled legal principles for reopening. The reopening notice was therefore illegal. Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue relied on the investigation report and the reopening notice, but the Court emphasized that the Assessing Officer must independently verify and record reasons, which was not done. The Court rejected the Revenue's reliance on the investigation wing's information as sufficient for reopening. Conclusions: The reopening of assessment was invalid due to reliance on wrong information and lack of independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Issue 2: Legitimacy of Addition under Section 69A for Unexplained Cash Deposits Relevant legal framework: Section 69A deals with unexplained money, bullion, jewellery or other valuables not recorded in books of account. If the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the nature and source, the amount may be deemed income. However, if the amount is recorded in books of account and disclosed in the return, section 69A is not applicable. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the assessee maintained proper books of account audited by a Chartered Accountant and disclosed the cash deposits of Rs. 16,50,000/- in the return of income. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 35,10,000/- under section 69A, ignoring the books and evidences. The Court held that once the amount is recorded and disclosed, it cannot be treated as unexplained money. Therefore, the addition under section 69A was unsustainable. Key evidence and findings: Audited books of account, bank statements, bank certificates, and VAT returns corroborated the genuineness of the cash deposits. The Assessing Officer failed to consider these evidences. Application of law to facts: The addition was based on an inflated figure and ignored the documentary evidence. The Court applied the legal principle that section 69A additions require unexplained money not recorded in books, which was not the case here. Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued for addition based on investigation information, but the Court rejected this, emphasizing the primacy of recorded and disclosed transactions. Conclusions: The addition of Rs. 35,10,000/- under section 69A was erroneous and required deletion. Issue 3: Validity of Ad Hoc Addition of Rs. 3,30,000/- by CIT(A) Relevant legal framework: Additions must be supported by material evidence or justification. Ad hoc additions without basis violate principles of natural justice and are not sustainable. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs. 3,30,000/- (20% of Rs. 16,50,000/-) on an ad hoc basis to safeguard revenue interests, without any supporting material or reasons. The Court disapproved this approach, stating that the CIT(A)'s role is to decide appeals in accordance with law, not to protect revenue interests arbitrarily. Since there was no material to doubt the genuineness of business sales or opening cash balance, the addition was unjustified. Key evidence and findings: No material was placed on record by the CIT(A) to justify the ad hoc addition. Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle that additions must be based on evidence and reasoned findings, not mere estimates or assumptions. Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee argued that the addition was arbitrary and without basis. The Court agreed and deleted the addition. Conclusions: The ad hoc addition of Rs. 3,30,000/- was deleted for lack of supporting material and justification. Issue 4: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice Relevant legal framework: The principles of natural justice require that an assessee's submissions and evidences be considered before adverse orders are passed. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Assessing Officer ignored the replies and evidences filed by the assessee, including bank certificates and statements. This was held to be arbitrary and against natural justice. Key evidence and findings: Submitted evidences were ignored in the assessment order. Application of law to facts: Ignoring evidences without consideration violates natural justice. Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue did not justify ignoring evidences. Conclusions: The assessment order was passed in violation of natural justice principles. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "The reopening of assessment under Section 147 is a potent power and should not be lightly exercised. It certainly cannot be invoked casually or mechanically." "If a particular authority has been designated to record his/her satisfaction on any particular issue, then it is that authority alone who should apply his/her independent mind to record his/her satisfaction and further mandatory condition is that the satisfaction recorded should be 'independent' and not 'borrowed' or 'dictated' satisfaction." "Once an amount has been declared as income and it has been taxed then such the same cannot be treated as unexplained money." "The learned CIT(A) has stated in his order that he was confirming the aforesaid addition of Rs. 3,30,000/- to safeguard the interest of Revenue. This approach, that the learned CIT(A) was to protect the interest of Revenue is disapproved. It is no job of the learned CIT(A) to protect the interest of Revenue. His job is to decide the appeal in accordance with law." "The Assessing Officer has failed to apply his mind independently and has merely relied on wrong information from the investigation wing without verifying the bank records, thus the reopening notice issued under section 148 is invalid and void." Final determinations:
|
