2025 (7) TMI 890 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/sec.69A - unexplained money - cash deposits into bank a/c during the demonetization period - HELD THAT - The only reason given by the AO to make the addition is cash deposits during the demonetization period. There is no finding from the AO about the nature of cash deposit whether it is in SBNs or regular currency. As going by the observation of the AO himself in his assessment order the AO noted that the assessee could not file relevant details including details of cash deposit in SBNs. From the above observation of the AO it is undisputedly clear that there is no details with the AO with regard to nature of cash deposits i.e, . cash deposit in SBNs during the demonetization period. Once the cash deposit during the demonetization period is not in SBNs then the source for said cash deposit needs to be examined in light of relevant details filed by the assessee. In the present case it was the explanation of the assessee before the AO and the learned CIT(A) that source for cash deposit is out of sales declared for the relevant financial year. To support her arguments the assessee has filed VAT returns and relevant bank statements and as per the details filed by the assessee the assessee has declared sales. The assessee has also filed relevant details of month-wise sales for the 2 financial years i.e. 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. The assessee had also filed details of cash deposit for the above 2 financial years. From the details submitted by the assessee which is part of order passed by CIT(A) we find that there is no abnormal deviation in sales declared for 2 financial years and more particularly during the demonetization period. There is no abnormal deviation in cash deposit into bank a/c during the demonetization period when compared to previous financial year which is evident from the facts gathered by CIT(A) that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs. 58, 09, 000/- in the month of November 2016 whereas the corresponding cash deposit for the month of November 2015 was at Rs. 78, 69, 688/-. Since there is no abnormal deviation in cash sales or cash deposit during the demonetization period when compared to earlier financial year during the same period in our considered view merely for the reason of cash deposit into bank a/c during the demonetization period the explanation offered by the assessee with regard to source for said cash deposit cannot be discarded. This legal principle is supported by the Judgment of Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. 2022 (1) TMI 848 - DELHI HIGH COURT wherein it has been clearly held that in case there is no deviation in cash deposits into bank a/c during the demonetization period when compared to corresponding period of previous financial year then no addition can be made towards cash deposit. In the present case the AO without appreciating the relevant facts and also without bringing on record whether cash deposit into bank a/c during the demonetization period is in SBNs or not has simply made the addition u/sec.69A. CIT(A) without appreciating the relevant facts has simply sustained the addition made by the AO. Thus we direct AO to delete the addition made towards cash deposit made into bank a/c during the demonetization period u/sec.69A - Assessee appeal allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

- Whether the delay of 11 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal should be condoned.

- Whether the addition of Rs. 60,42,500/- made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, towards unexplained cash deposits in the bank account during the demonetization period, is justified.

- Whether the assessee's explanation that the cash deposits were out of declared sales supported by relevant bills, vouchers, VAT returns, and bank statements was properly considered and accepted or rejected by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A).

- Whether the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) correctly applied the legal principles relating to unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period, particularly in light of comparative cash deposit data from previous years and judicial precedents.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Delay in Filing Appeal

The legal framework for condonation of delay was considered with reference to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji, which advocates a liberal and lenient approach towards condoning delays, especially when the delay is not intentional or wanton but due to circumstances beyond control. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the 11-day delay, including lack of prior experience in filing appeals before the Tribunal and the need to consult professional peers.

The Revenue did not strongly oppose the condonation given the smallness of the delay. The Tribunal, after perusing the affidavit and applying the principles from MST Katiji, held that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and was caused by circumstances beyond control. Therefore, the delay of 11 days was condoned in the interest of justice, and the appeal was admitted for adjudication.

Addition of Rs. 60,42,500/- under Section 69A for Unexplained Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, empowers the Assessing Officer to make additions to income where cash credits or deposits are unexplained or not satisfactorily explained by the assessee. The CBDT had issued a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for verification of cash deposits during the demonetization period, requiring detailed evidence such as cash books, sales bills, bank account details of Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) deposited, and comparative data from prior years to verify genuineness.

Judicial precedent from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. established that if there is no abnormal deviation in cash deposits during the demonetization period compared to the corresponding period in the previous financial year, no addition under section 69A can be sustained merely on account of cash deposits during demonetization.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment on the basis of cash deposits of Rs. 60,42,500/- during the demonetization period and made additions under section 69A, observing that the assessee failed to provide relevant bills, vouchers, cash books, and details of cash sales to explain the source of deposits. However, the Assessing Officer did not specifically find that the deposits were in SBNs, nor did he establish the nature of the cash deposits conclusively.

The assessee contended that the cash deposits were out of declared sales of explosives for the relevant year, supported by VAT returns, bank statements, and comparative month-wise sales data for the two preceding financial years. The assessee argued that there was no abnormal deviation in cash deposits during the demonetization period compared to prior years.

The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's addition, reasoning that the assessee failed to furnish evidence such as bills, vouchers, cash books, or bank account details of SBN deposits, which were called for in the SOP. The CIT(A) placed emphasis on the timing of the deposits during the demonetization period rather than the comparative data or the nature of the deposits.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee submitted VAT returns, bank statements, and month-wise sales and cash deposit details for the years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. The data showed that the cash deposits during the demonetization period did not deviate abnormally from previous years. For instance, cash deposits in November 2016 were Rs. 58,09,000/- compared to Rs. 78,69,688/- in November 2015, indicating no unusual increase.

The Assessing Officer's order lacked any specific finding that the deposits were made in SBNs, which is a critical factor under the SOP for demonetization-related cash deposit scrutiny. The absence of such a finding undermined the basis of the addition.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the legal principle that mere cash deposits during the demonetization period do not warrant addition under section 69A if the assessee can satisfactorily explain the source and there is no abnormal deviation in deposits compared to previous years. Since the Assessing Officer failed to establish that the deposits were in SBNs or that there was any abnormality, the addition was not justified.

The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the relevant facts and evidence submitted by the assessee, including the comparative data and VAT returns, and mechanically upheld the addition solely on the timing of deposits.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee's counsel emphasized the absence of any finding regarding the nature of cash deposits, the submission of comprehensive evidence supporting the source of funds, and judicial precedent negating addition in the absence of abnormal deviation. The Revenue's representative relied on the assessee's failure to submit certain documents as per SOP and the timing of deposits during demonetization to justify the addition.

The Tribunal favored the assessee's arguments, holding that the Revenue failed to discharge the burden of proof to show that the deposits were unexplained or abnormal, and the mere occurrence of deposits during demonetization without abnormality cannot sustain an addition under section 69A.

Conclusions: The delay in filing appeal was condoned. The addition of Rs. 60,42,500/- under section 69A was held to be unjustified and was set aside. The appeal was allowed with directions to delete the addition.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"Going by the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MST Katiji (supra), there is no dispute if an appeal is dismissed on account of technicalities, a meritorious case may be thrown-out of judicial review. Therefore, while condoning the delay, the courts must have a liberal approach or lenient approach considering the reasons given by the petitioners or appellants."

"The Assessing Officer without appreciating the relevant facts and also without bringing on record whether cash deposit into bank a/c during the demonetization period is in SBNs or not, has simply made the addition u/sec.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned CIT(A) without appreciating the relevant facts has simply sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer."

"Since there is no abnormal deviation in cash sales or cash deposit during the demonetization period when compared to earlier financial year during the same period, in our considered view, merely for the reason of cash deposit into bank a/c during the demonetization period, the explanation offered by the assessee with regard to source for said cash deposit cannot be discarded."

"In case there is no deviation in cash deposits into bank a/c during the demonetization period when compared to corresponding period of previous financial year, then, no addition can be made towards cash deposit."

Final determinations:

- The delay of 11 days in filing the appeal was condoned in the interest of justice.

- The addition of Rs. 60,42,500/- under section 69A towards unexplained cash deposits during demonetization was set aside.

- The assessee's explanation supported by VAT returns, bank statements, and comparative data was accepted as satisfactory to explain the source of cash deposits.

- The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to properly apply the legal principles and appreciate the evidence, leading to an erroneous addition.