2025 (7) TMI 234 - AT - Income Tax

Addition being cash deposit in the saving bank account held with ICICI Bank - true nature of the business of the assessee who is a small dealer of trading in vegetables - estimation of income on fair basis - As submitted profit of approximately 20% may be estimated on the turnover of the assessee - HELD THAT - The documents furnished before the CIT(A) and before us to prove that the assessee is carrying on the business are not substantiated by credible evidence. The confirmation letters are by two individuals without copies of their PAN Aadhar or any Affidavit. Copies of bank statement indicate that there have been withdrawals also on various dates and transactions are spread across the year and the peak balance in the bank is not exceeding Rs. 3.00 lakh at any point of time. We therefore taking a liberal approach and being fair to both the parties accept the contention of the assessee that the alleged receipts are on account of sale proceeds of agricultural products. However in absence of proper documents we estimate the income @25% of the alleged gross receipts and estimate income of the assessee at Rs. 3, 02, 855/- and give part relief to the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Summary

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 12,11,420/- as unexplained cash deposit in the savings bank account of the assessee was justified under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, particularly under sections 144 and 147.

2. Whether the assessee's claim that the cash deposits represented sale proceeds from his business of trading in agricultural products was substantiated by credible evidence.

3. Whether the income of the assessee could be fairly estimated on the basis of the available material, given the assessee's failure to comply with assessment proceedings and provide adequate documentation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Justification for Addition of Cash Deposits as Income under Sections 144 and 147 of the Income-tax Act

The legal framework involves section 147, which empowers the Assessing Officer (AO) to reassess income where income has escaped assessment, and section 144, which permits the AO to make a best judgment assessment where the assessee fails to comply with the assessment proceedings. Precedents establish that unexplained cash deposits can be treated as income if the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the source of such deposits.

The AO invoked these provisions after the assessee did not file a return under section 139(1) and failed to appear before the AO despite notices. Consequently, the AO treated the entire cash deposit of Rs. 12,11,420/- as income and made an addition accordingly. The Tribunal noted that the AO's action was legally permissible due to the assessee's non-compliance, and the addition was prima facie justified.

The assessee challenged this addition, asserting that the cash deposits were legitimate sale proceeds from his business. The Tribunal examined the procedural propriety and found that the notices under section 148 were validly served and assessment under section 144 r.w.s. 147 was correctly passed.

2. Credibility of Assessee's Claim that Cash Deposits Represented Business Sale Proceeds

The assessee contended that he was engaged in trading agricultural products and the cash deposits were from sales. He submitted bank statements, receipt and payment accounts, confirmations from vendors, and other documents to substantiate his claim. However, the Tribunal observed that the confirmations were from only two individuals without PAN, Aadhar, or affidavits, undermining their credibility. The documents lacked sufficient corroboration to conclusively establish the source of the deposits.

Despite this, the Tribunal noted that the bank statements showed withdrawals and transactions spread throughout the year, with peak balances not exceeding Rs. 3 lakh at any time. This transactional pattern suggested business activity rather than mere unexplained cash hoarding.

Applying a balanced and liberal approach, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention partially, acknowledging that the deposits likely represented sale proceeds but emphasizing the lack of proper documentary evidence to fully substantiate the claim.

3. Estimation of Income in Absence of Proper Documentation

Given the assessee's failure to provide credible and complete evidence, the Tribunal resorted to estimation of income, a recognized principle under the Act when exact determination is not possible. The assessee himself suggested an approximate profit margin of 20% on turnover.

The Tribunal, exercising its discretion, estimated income at 25% of the cash deposits (Rs. 12,11,420/-), resulting in an income determination of Rs. 3,02,855/-. This estimation was intended to be fair and reasonable, providing partial relief to the assessee while safeguarding revenue interests.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which had confirmed the full addition and allowed the appeal partly on this basis.

Significant Holdings

The Tribunal held that: "taking a liberal approach and being fair to both the parties accept the contention of the assessee that the alleged receipts are on account of sale proceeds of agricultural products. However, in absence of proper documents, we estimate the income @25% of the alleged gross receipts of Rs. 12,11,420/- and estimate income of the assessee at Rs. 3,02,855/- and give part relief to the assessee."

This establishes the principle that where an assessee fails to furnish adequate evidence to fully substantiate cash deposits claimed as business receipts, the income can be estimated on a reasonable basis rather than making a full addition. The Tribunal balanced the revenue's right to tax escaped income with the assessee's right to fair treatment.

On the issue of procedural compliance, the Tribunal affirmed the validity of reassessment under sections 147 and 148 and the use of best judgment assessment under section 144 in cases of non-compliance.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by reducing the addition to Rs. 3,02,855/-, thereby modifying the assessment and setting aside the appellate order confirming the full addition.