2025 (6) TMI 1458 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - cash found deposited in its bank account during demonetization period source of which allegedly remained unexplained - onus to prove -HELD THAT - The assessee has furnished copies of ledger accounts as also copies of receipts issued to them. Copy of the entire cash book of the assessee as also its entire books of accounts which were duly audited were furnished to the Revenue authorities. In the light of all these evidences before the Revenue authorities wherein they had all information about the details and particulars of person from whom the assessee had received cash as repayment of loan without finding any infirmity in these evidences the Revenue authorities could not have adopted the data analysis technique for rejecting the assessee s explanation. The course of action to be followed by the Revenue was to verify the details furnished by the assessee and if found to be incorrect or unreliable then adopt any other method for arriving at any conclusion but without giving any plausible reason for rejecting assessee s specific explanation of the source of cash deposit supported with evidences the adoption of data analysis for arriving at the conclusion that the assessee s explanation was not satisfactory is totally incorrect and against the due process of law. No hesitation in holding that the basis adopted by the Revenue authorities for treating the cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee as unexplained is completely arbitrary and based on assumptions and presumption alone when the fact is that the assessee furnished explanation duly supported with evidences which has not been rejected nor any plausible reason for rejecting the same given by the Revenue authorities. The addition therefore made in the case of the assessee hold it not sustainable and direct deletion of the same. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Summary

The core legal issues considered in this appeal pertain primarily to the validity of the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained cash credits arising from deposits made during the demonetization period. The key questions include:

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 12,04,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 was justified given the explanations and evidences furnished by the assessee regarding the source of cash deposits.

2. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition without supplying the remand report received from the Assessing Officer during appellate proceedings, thereby violating procedural and constitutional mandates.

3. Whether the Revenue authorities were justified in relying on data analysis of loan repayments and cash deposits to reject the assessee's explanation without conducting proper verification of the furnished evidences.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of Addition under Section 68 on Account of Unexplained Cash Credit

The relevant legal framework involves Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, which mandates that when any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee and the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of such sum, it is treated as income and added to the total income. The burden lies on the assessee to provide a satisfactory explanation supported by evidence.

In the present case, the assessee is a Credit Co-operative Society engaged in financial activities, including providing loans and receiving repayments. The Assessing Officer noticed substantial cash deposits in the bank account during the demonetization period (08.11.2016 to 30.12.2017), particularly from 14.11.2016 onwards, amounting to Rs. 12,04,000/-. The AO treated this amount as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, rejecting the assessee's explanation that these deposits were repayments of loans by members.

The assessee had furnished comprehensive evidence including:

• Names and ledger accounts of all depositors/borrowers who repaid loans in cash during the period.
• Copies of receipts issued to the borrowers for such repayments.
• Complete audited books of accounts and cash books maintained under the Gujarat State Co-operative Act.

Despite this, the Revenue authorities rejected the explanation based on a data analysis which showed a significant surge in cash repayments in October and November 2016, constituting over 77% of the total cash loan repayments for the year, and a 47.5% increase in loan recovery during the third quarter compared to the previous year. The authorities inferred that such a surge was suspicious and thus the explanation was unsatisfactory.

The Court, however, held that the rejection of the explanation solely on the basis of data analysis without verifying or finding any infirmity in the documentary evidence furnished by the assessee was not justified. The Court emphasized that the Revenue's approach was arbitrary and based on assumptions and presumptions rather than concrete evidence. The proper course, as per the Court, would have been to verify the details and if found unreliable, then to take further steps rather than outright rejecting the explanation without plausible reasons.

The Court noted that the assessee had fully complied with the requirements to explain the source of cash deposits and had provided all relevant documents. Hence, the addition was unsustainable.

2. Procedural Compliance Regarding Supply of Remand Report

The assessee also contended that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without supplying the remand report received from the AO during appellate proceedings, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the constitutional mandate.

The Court observed this ground but did not find it necessary to dwell extensively on it since the substantive issue of addition itself was decided in favour of the assessee. However, the Court implicitly underscored the importance of procedural fairness and the requirement to furnish all relevant documents and reports to the appellant to enable effective adjudication.

3. Reliance on Data Analysis by Revenue Authorities

The Revenue's reliance on statistical data showing a surge in cash repayments and loan recovery to discredit the assessee's explanation was critically examined. The Court held that such data analysis cannot substitute for evidentiary verification. The authorities cannot reject a detailed explanation backed by documentary proof merely because the pattern of transactions appears unusual or disproportionate compared to prior years.

The Court reasoned that an increase in cash repayments during the demonetization period could be a natural consequence of the financial environment at that time and does not ipso facto indicate concealment or unexplained credits. The Court emphasized that the Revenue must engage in fact-based verification rather than presumptive conclusions.

Significant Holdings:

The Court held that "the addition made in the present case is not sustainable for the reason that it has been made solely on the basis of assumption and presumption despite the fact that the assessee furnished all possible details, facts and evidences in support of its explanation of the source of the cash deposit."

It further stated, "without finding any infirmity in these evidences, the Revenue authorities could not have adopted the data analysis technique for rejecting the assessee's explanation. The adoption of data analysis for arriving at the conclusion that the assessee's explanation was not satisfactory is totally incorrect and against the due process of law."

The Court conclusively held that the addition of Rs. 12,04,000/- treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 was "completely arbitrary and based on assumptions and presumption alone," and directed its deletion.

The principles established include:

• The burden on the assessee to explain cash credits must be met with credible and verifiable evidence.
• Revenue authorities cannot reject such explanation solely on the basis of data analysis or statistical inference without verifying the evidences.
• Assumptions and presumptions cannot substitute for due process and factual verification.
• Procedural fairness requires that all relevant materials, including remand reports, be supplied to the appellant to enable effective appeal proceedings.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the addition made by the Revenue authorities.