2025 (5) TMI 26 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash credits u/s 68 - though the assessee had maintained books of accounts but explanation offered by the assessee for sources of cash deposits during the demonetization period was not found to be satisfactory - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT - We find that the appellant has proved that the cash deposits in the bank account maintained by it with HDFC Bank were out of the cash in hand at the relevant time. The cash in hand was due to cash withdrawals by the assessee from its bank accounts on earlier occasions. There were no cash sales and all sales by the appellant were by way of credit sales. Therefore the source of cash deposit in the bank accounts was clearly not out of cash sales. The appellant has submitted books of account including cash book and bank book from which it is clear that the appellant had sufficient cash in hand to make the cash deposits in the bank on various occasions including the period of demonetization. It is also found that there is no variation between the VAT returns and the audited accounts filed before the Department. AO has not pointed out any defect in the books of account maintained by the assessee which were produced before the Department. What is germane to the issue at hand is as to whether assessee had sufficient cash in hand at the time of cash deposit in its bank account and not why it kept such large cash in hand. It was a decision by the appellant which is beyond realm of AO s discretion. Hence the AO was not correct in making addition of the entire cash deposit because the source was duly explained by the assessee. Decided against revenue. Disallowance of interest expenditure - There was no restriction on cash withdrawal from bank during contingency or urgent requirement. AR has not seriously argued on this issue. Therefore explanation of the assessee that it would have deposited the cash in hand in various intervals if the demonetization had not happened is not totally correct. Hence it is held that the entire interest expenditure was not for the purpose of business within the scope and ambit of section 37 of the Act. It was not laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Hence it would be reasonable if 25% of the interest expenditure is disallowed for not being laid out wholly and exclusively for business purpose. AO is therefore directed to add Rs. 4, 81, 558/- on this issue. This ground is partly allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this appeal are:

(a) Whether the addition of Rs. 2,50,51,450/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was justified, given the assessee's explanation regarding the source of cash deposits during the demonetization period;

(b) Whether the explanation offered by the assessee for the source of cash deposits, despite maintaining books of account, was satisfactory and adequately substantiated;

(c) Whether the assessee's claim of maintaining large cash-in-hand balances while simultaneously incurring interest expenses on borrowed funds was commercially expedient and acceptable;

(d) Whether the deletion of the addition by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] on the basis that the cash was kept as contingency funds during the pre-demonetization period was justified, especially considering the lack of explanation for not maintaining such cash during the post-demonetization period;

(e) Whether the interest expenditure of Rs. 19,26,233/- paid on bank borrowings was wholly and exclusively for business purposes and hence allowable under section 37 of the Act.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a), (b) and (d): Legitimacy of Cash Deposits and Explanation under Section 68

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 68 of the Income-tax Act permits the addition of unexplained cash credits to the income of the assessee if the source of such credits is not satisfactorily explained. The burden lies on the assessee to establish the genuineness and source of cash credits. The principle is that if the source is satisfactorily explained, no addition is warranted.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The AO observed that the assessee deposited Rs. 2,50,51,450/- in cash during the year, including Rs. 1,68,00,000/- during the demonetization period. The AO disbelieved the assessee's explanation that these deposits were out of prior cash withdrawals kept as cash-in-hand for business contingencies. The AO noted the inconsistency of maintaining large cash balances while simultaneously incurring interest expenses on bank borrowings. Further, the AO was not satisfied with the turnover substantiation and considered the cash deposits as unexplained, adding the entire amount under section 68 and taxing it under section 115BBE.

The CIT(A), however, after detailed examination of the cash book, bank statements, audit report, VAT returns and profit and loss accounts, found that the cash deposits were indeed sourced from earlier cash withdrawals from the same bank account. The CIT(A) noted that the turnover was consistent with the accounts and VAT returns, which were not disputed by the AO. The CIT(A) observed that the AO had accepted the cash withdrawals but not the redeposits, which was an incorrect application of section 68. The CIT(A) held that the source of cash deposits was satisfactorily explained and hence deleted the addition.

Key evidence and findings: The assessee produced comprehensive documentary evidence including cash books, bank books, day-to-day cash records, audited financial statements, VAT returns, and bank statements. The records showed a pattern of cash withdrawals followed by redeposits, including during the demonetization period. The AO did not point out any defect in the books of account. The CIT(A) relied on this evidence to conclude the genuineness of cash deposits.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal emphasized that the critical question under section 68 is whether the source of cash deposits is satisfactorily explained, not the reason for maintaining large cash balances. Since the assessee demonstrated that cash deposits originated from prior withdrawals, the addition was unwarranted. The Tribunal also noted that the AO's disallowance based on commercial expediency or business prudence was beyond the scope of section 68.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued that the large cash balances were inconsistent with borrowing interest-bearing funds and that the assessee failed to explain why such cash was not maintained post-demonetization. The assessee countered that the cash was kept for business contingencies and that the AO could not dictate business decisions or expenditures. The Tribunal sided with the assessee, holding that the AO's reasoning was speculative and not supported by evidence.

Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition under section 68, holding that the source of cash deposits was satisfactorily explained and that the AO's addition was unjustified.

Issue (c): Commercial Expediency of Maintaining Cash-in-Hand and Borrowing Interest-Bearing Funds

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The concept of commercial expediency is relevant in determining the allowability of expenses under section 37 of the Act and in assessing the genuineness of transactions. However, the discretion of business decisions generally lies with the assessee unless there is evidence of mala fide or tax evasion.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The AO questioned the prudence of maintaining large cash balances while borrowing funds and paying interest. The Revenue contended that no prudent businessman would keep idle cash while incurring interest expenses. The assessee argued that the AO could not prescribe how the business should manage its cash and that the interest expense was incurred for business purposes.

Key evidence and findings: The AO noted interest expenses of Rs. 19,26,233/- paid on the bank's cash credit limit despite large cash balances. The assessee failed to provide documentary evidence of any emergency or contingency that necessitated maintaining such cash balances.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal acknowledged that while the AO's skepticism was understandable, the business decision to maintain cash-in-hand was within the assessee's discretion. However, regarding the interest expense, the Tribunal held that since the assessee failed to substantiate the business necessity for incurring such interest while holding large cash, a portion of the interest expense was not wholly and exclusively for business.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue sought full disallowance of interest expenses, while the assessee contended for full allowance. The Tribunal adopted a middle path, disallowing 25% of the interest expense as not attributable to business purposes.

Conclusions: The Tribunal directed the AO to disallow Rs. 4,81,558/- (25% of Rs. 19,26,233/-) of the interest expense, holding that the remainder was allowable.

Issue (e): Applicability of Section 115BBE on the Cash Deposits

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 115BBE provides for a special rate of tax on income from unexplained cash credits, unexplained investments, and unexplained money or bullion. However, the amendment introducing this section was effective from 15.12.2016.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The assessee contended that since the cash deposit of Rs. 1,68,00,000/- was made on 15.11.2016, prior to the amendment's effective date, section 115BBE was not applicable retrospectively. The Tribunal noted reliance on judicial precedents supporting the non-retrospective application of section 115BBE.

Key evidence and findings: The date of cash deposits and legislative amendment timelines were considered.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal agreed that section 115BBE could not be applied retrospectively to cash deposits made before 15.12.2016.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue did not contest this point strongly. The assessee's submissions were accepted.

Conclusions: The Tribunal held that section 115BBE was not applicable to the cash deposits made prior to its effective date.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"What is germane to the issue at hand is as to whether assessee had sufficient cash in hand at the time of cash deposit in its bank account and not why it kept such large cash in hand. It was a decision by the appellant which is beyond realm of AO's discretion."

"The AO was not correct in making addition of the entire cash deposit because the source was duly explained by the assessee."

"The entire cash deposit of Rs. 2,50,51,450/- in the bank account was out of cash withdrawals made earlier from the same bank account, and hence the source of cash deposit is satisfactorily explained under section 68."

"It would be reasonable if 25% of the interest expenditure of Rs. 19,26,233/- is disallowed for not being laid out wholly and exclusively for business purpose."

"Section 115BBE of the Act is not applicable retrospectively and hence cannot be applied to cash deposits made prior to 15.12.2016."

The Tribunal concluded that the addition under section 68 was not sustainable and deleted the same, but partially allowed disallowance of interest expenditure under section 37. The appeal of the Revenue was therefore partly allowed.