2025 (6) TMI 1685 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - unexplained deposits in bank account - As argued additional evidences furnished by the assessee are not dealt with and deliberate upon the authorities below HELD THAT - As assessee had furnished various documents for more than 300 pages before the Ld. CIT(A) which are at first glance found to be relevant to the business of the assessee however the appeal was dismissed without referring to such documents stating that the assessee failed to make any attempt to link the deposits with the business receipts whereas there was no material on record to show that the assessee was show caused to furnish explanations qua such claim by the CIT(A). We therefore after having given a thoughtful deliberation to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the present case are of the considered view that in all fairness following the principle of natural justice the matter should be restore back to the file of CIT(A) for denovo adjudication within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of this order. Needless to say the assessee shall be afforded with reasonable opportunity of being heard in the set aside appellate proceedings - Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in the appeal are:

- Whether the addition of Rs. 96,04,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is justified and sustainable in law.

- Whether the assessee adequately explained the nature and source of the cash deposits, particularly during the demonetization period and from share proceeds, so as to rebut the presumption of unexplained credits under section 68.

- Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in confirming the addition without properly considering the extensive documentary evidence and submissions furnished by the assessee.

- Whether the appeal filed before the Tribunal with a delay of three days should be admitted and the delay condoned.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Justification of addition of Rs. 96,04,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 68 of the Income Tax Act requires that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of such sum or the explanation offered is unsatisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee. The burden lies on the assessee to satisfactorily explain the source of cash credits.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The AO observed that the assessee made cash deposits amounting to Rs. 96,04,000/- in his bank account during the demonetization period and earlier, which were unexplained. The assessee's initial submission was a single-page document containing various accounts but failed to provide supporting documents or link the deposits to business receipts. Consequently, the AO treated the deposits as unexplained cash credits and added the amount to the assessee's income.

The CIT(A) upheld the AO's addition, noting that the assessee failed to furnish comparative income figures for previous years or establish a nexus between commission income and the cash deposits. The CIT(A) also found that the customer statements submitted were not linked with bank statements, and thus the explanation was inadequate.

Key evidence and findings: The assessee's initial submissions before the AO were insufficient and lacked documentary support. However, before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, the assessee furnished voluminous evidence including ledger accounts, sample bills, Form 26AS, sales and purchase registers, bank statements, audit reports, revised computations, income tax returns, and financial statements.

Application of law to facts: The AO and CIT(A) applied section 68 strictly, emphasizing the assessee's failure to satisfactorily explain the source of cash deposits. However, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not refer to or consider the extensive documents submitted by the assessee, nor was the assessee called upon to clarify or explain the additional evidence.

Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee argued that the cash deposits represented genuine business receipts from retail trading and commission income, supported by detailed documentary evidence. The Revenue contended that the explanation was insufficient and the addition was warranted. However, the Revenue conceded that if the additional evidence was not considered, the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Conclusions: The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the documentary evidence and without affording the assessee an opportunity to explain the additional submissions. The addition was thus held to be arbitrary and bad in law insofar as it was confirmed without proper examination of the evidence.

Issue 2: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal

Relevant legal framework: Delay in filing an appeal can be condoned if the appellant shows sufficient cause and the delay is not inordinate or intentional.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed with a delay of three days due to bonafide confusion regarding the applicability of new provisions for filing appeals before the Tribunal. The delay was minimal and unintentional.

Key evidence and findings: The assessee's counsel explained the reason for delay, and the Revenue did not oppose the condonation.

Application of law to facts: Given the short delay and absence of objection, the Tribunal exercised discretion to condone the delay.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue did not contest the condonation.

Conclusions: The delay of three days in filing the appeal was condoned and the appeal admitted for adjudication.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal held that:

"Prima facie, it is evident that the assessee had furnished various documents for more than 300 pages before the Ld. CIT(A), which are at first glance found to be relevant to the business of the assessee, however, the appeal was dismissed without referring to such documents, stating that the assessee failed to make any attempt to link the deposits with the business receipts, whereas there was no material on record to show that the assessee was show caused to furnish explanations qua such claim by the Ld. CIT(A)."

"We, therefore, after having given a thoughtful deliberation to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the present case, are of the considered view that in all fairness, following the principle of natural justice, the matter should be restore back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication, within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of this order."

Core principles established include:

- The importance of the principle of natural justice requiring that all evidence submitted by an assessee must be duly considered before confirming additions under section 68.

- The necessity for the Revenue authorities to afford the assessee an opportunity to explain or clarify additional evidence before dismissing the appeal.

- The Tribunal's power to remit the matter for fresh adjudication where the lower authorities have failed to consider relevant evidence or provide a fair hearing.

Final determinations:

- The addition of Rs. 96,04,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 was not upheld at this stage due to procedural infirmities in the appellate process.

- The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes by remanding the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering all documentary evidence and providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

- The delay of three days in filing the appeal was condoned.