2025 (7) TMI 428 - AT - Income Tax

Treating 35% cash deposits as unexplained cash credit - Additions based merely on presumptions - HELD THAT - As no mentioning of any show cause notice/intimation to the assessee for proposed addition to be carried out which is against the principle of natural justice. It is evident that the AO has carried out additions under presumptions and without any evidences on record. In respect of first addition on account of cash deposited it was observed that AO has partly treated cash deposited as unexplained cash credit whereas the assessee has claimed the same as Sales. AO has also not provided any basis for considering only 35% as unexplained cash credit. Also AO has not provided any specific findings that a particular sales entry appearing in the books of account of the assessee is not an actual sale but unexplained cash credit. This clearly indicate that the AO has presumed certain portion of cash deposited as unexplained cash credit. Total sales of the assessee for year under consideration is in line with past two years sales and therefore treating 35% cash deposits as unexplained cash credit is not justified. Decided in favour of assessee. Addition of debtors outstanding as on 31.03.2017 for the purpose of calculating 20% disallowances - AO had sent notices to 24 parties and on perusal of chart depicted in the assessment order it was observed that four parties have responded to the assessing officer s notices - HELD THAT - The order of the AO made addition under presumptions and that too without issuing show cause notice. In this regard Ld. CIT(A) has rightly relied upon the decisions in the case of Prashant Pratap Ahir 2022 (11) TMI 463 - ITAT PUNE It is well settled law by the Hon ble Supreme Court in M/S JEET CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 2020 (11) TMI 1096 - SC ORDER that in absence of supporting evidence additions based merely on presumption that assessee had earned undisclosed income and incurred expenses outside books of account would not be sustainable. Therefore CIT(A) has rightly held that since AO has carried out additions under presumptions and without having concrete evidence for the same and he has not issued show cause notice which is in violation of principle of natural justice and thus the assessment order is liable to be quashed and hence CIT(A) correctly deleted all the additions in dispute. Revenue s appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The core legal questions considered in this judgment pertain to the validity and legality of additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) to the assessee's income under the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically:

1. Whether the AO was justified in treating 35% of the cash deposits as unexplained cash credits without providing a proper basis or issuing a show cause notice, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

2. Whether the addition of 20% of the total debtors as accommodation entries or bogus sales was supported by sufficient evidence and proper procedure, including issuance of show cause notice and specific findings on the genuineness of debtors.

3. Whether the addition of unsecured loans to income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act was substantiated with proper verification and evidence.

4. Whether the assessment order was vitiated due to non-issuance of a show cause notice before making additions, and if the multiple opportunities provided during assessment proceedings satisfied the requirements of natural justice.

5. Whether the assessment conducted outside the Faceless Scheme (Section 144B) affects the requirement of issuing a show cause notice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Addition on account of unexplained cash credits (35% of cash deposits)

Legal framework and precedents: Section 68 of the Income Tax Act permits addition of unexplained cash credits to the income of the assessee if the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of the credit. The principle of natural justice mandates issuance of a show cause notice proposing the addition before it is made. Judicial precedents emphasize that additions based on mere suspicion or presumption without corroborative evidence are not sustainable (Prashant Pratap Ahir vs ACIT; Supreme Court ruling on presumption without evidence).

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the AO treated 35% of the cash deposits as unexplained cash credits without providing any basis or specific findings for this percentage. The AO did not identify any particular sales entry as bogus or unexplained. The total sales for the year under consideration were consistent with previous years, undermining the presumption that part of the cash deposits were unexplained credits.

Key evidence and findings: The AO's assessment order lacked any show cause notice or intimation to the assessee about the proposed addition, violating the principle of natural justice. The AO's approach was based on presumptions rather than concrete evidence.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal held that additions made on presumptions without evidence and without issuing a show cause notice are not sustainable. The principle that suspicion alone cannot be the basis of addition was applied.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued that multiple notices and opportunities were provided, satisfying natural justice. The Tribunal rejected this, emphasizing the absence of a formal show cause notice proposing the addition.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 42,01,500/- on account of unexplained cash credits was quashed as unjustified and violative of natural justice.

2. Addition of 20% of total debtors as accommodation entries/bogus sales

Legal framework and precedents: Under Section 68, unexplained loans or advances can be added to income if the assessee fails to prove the genuineness of transactions. The AO must provide specific findings and evidence to support such additions. The principle of natural justice requires a show cause notice before additions.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The AO issued notices under Section 133(6) to 24 debtors, but only four responded. Despite this, the AO did not specify which debtors were genuine or bogus and simply disallowed 20% of the total debtors without basis. The AO also failed to issue a show cause notice for the proposed addition.

Key evidence and findings: The AO's assessment order was silent on the basis for adopting 20% disallowance and on the status of the 16 parties other than the four who responded. The lack of specific observations on the responses undermined the addition.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal relied on precedents holding that additions based on presumption without evidence are unsustainable. The absence of a show cause notice further vitiated the assessment.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue contended that multiple opportunities and notices satisfied natural justice. The Tribunal held that these were insufficient without a formal show cause notice and concrete evidence.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 1,10,69,223/- on account of accommodation entries was deleted as unsustainable and violative of natural justice.

3. Addition of unsecured loans under Section 68

Legal framework and precedents: Under Section 68, unexplained loans or advances must be verified for identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness. Failure to do so justifies addition to income.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The AO noted that the assessee declared unsecured loans which could not be verified for identity or genuineness, justifying addition. However, the CIT(A) found that the AO failed to substantiate the addition properly and did not issue a show cause notice.

Key evidence and findings: The AO's assessment order mentioned verification attempts but did not provide concrete evidence supporting the addition. The absence of a show cause notice was again noted.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the addition lacked proper basis and procedural fairness.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue's reliance on verification attempts was insufficient without evidence and procedural compliance.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 1,46,62,977/- was deleted due to lack of substantiation and violation of natural justice.

4. Validity of assessment order in light of non-issuance of show cause notice and principle of natural justice

Legal framework and precedents: The principle of natural justice requires that before making adverse additions, the assessee must be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard, typically through a show cause notice. The non-issuance of such notice can render the assessment order void ab initio.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The CIT(A) and Tribunal observed that the AO did not issue any show cause notice proposing the additions, which is a fundamental breach of natural justice. Although multiple notices and summons were issued during assessment, these did not substitute for a show cause notice.

Key evidence and findings: The AO's notice under Section 142(1) was described as a final opportunity but did not explicitly serve as a show cause notice for the proposed additions.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal held that the absence of a show cause notice vitiates the assessment order even if multiple opportunities were provided during assessment proceedings.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued that the assessment was not under the Faceless Scheme and non-issuance of show cause notice was not fatal. The Tribunal rejected this, emphasizing the fundamental nature of the principle of natural justice.

Conclusion: The assessment order was quashed on grounds of procedural infirmity and violation of natural justice.

5. Applicability of Faceless Scheme and its impact on procedural requirements

Legal framework and precedents: The Faceless Assessment Scheme under Section 144B prescribes specific procedures for assessments, including issuance of show cause notices. However, assessments outside this scheme must still comply with principles of natural justice.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the assessment was not conducted under the Faceless Scheme. Nonetheless, the absence of a show cause notice remained a fatal procedural defect.

Key evidence and findings: The AO issued multiple notices and summons but no formal show cause notice. The Tribunal underscored that procedural fairness is not negated by the mode of assessment.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal affirmed that irrespective of the assessment scheme, natural justice requires issuance of a show cause notice before making additions.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue's contention that non-issuance of show cause notice is not fatal outside Faceless Scheme was rejected.

Conclusion: The procedural lapse was fatal, and the assessment order was rightly quashed.

Significant Holdings

"It is quite a trite law that suspicion howsoever strong may be but cannot be the basis of addition except for some material evidence brought on record. The theory of preponderance of probability is applied to weigh the evidences of either side and draw a conclusion in favour of a party which has more favourable factors in his side, and conclusions have to be drawn on the basis of certain admitted facts and materials and not on the basis of presumption of facts."

"On perusal of the assessment order, it is also noted that the total sales of the appellant for year under consideration is in line with past two years sales and therefore treating 35% cash deposits as unexplained cash credit is not justified."

"There is no mentioning of any show cause notice/intimation to the appellant for proposed addition to be carried out. This is grossly against principle of natural justice."

"Additions based merely on presumption that assessee had earned undisclosed income and incurred expenses outside books of account would not be sustainable."

"The order passed by the Ld. AO is bad in law and void ab-initio."

"The assessment order is liable to be quashed and all the additions carried out are being deleted."

Core principles established include:

• Additions to income under Section 68 must be based on concrete evidence and not on mere suspicion or presumption.
• Issuance of a show cause notice proposing additions is a mandatory requirement under the principle of natural justice, failure of which renders the assessment order void.
• Multiple notices and opportunities during assessment proceedings do not substitute for a formal show cause notice.
• The mode of assessment (Faceless or traditional) does not dilute the requirement of adherence to natural justice.

Final determinations on each issue were in favour of the assessee, with the Tribunal affirming the CIT(A)'s deletion of all additions and dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.