2015 (11) TMI 1601 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on cash deposits in undisclosed bank balance - Held that - The discretion has been conferred on the Income tax Officer u/s 69 of the Act to treat the source of investment as the income of the assessee if the explanation offered by the assessee is not found satisfactory and the said discretion has to be exercised keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The Income Tax Officer is not obliged to treat the value of investment as income in every case where the explanation offered by the assessee is found to be unsatisfactory. Hence it would be unreasonable to tax all the deposits in the bank account of the assessee. To this extent we do not appreciate the action of the ld. AO in taxing the entire credits of 6, 30, 89, 413/- as undisclosed income of the assessee for A.Y.2006-07. To put this ongoing dispute to rest in the interest of justice and fair play we direct the ld. AO to assess the peak credit in this case in respect of both cash as well as cheque transaction contained in the said bank account by verifying the veracity of the figures worked out by the assesse and bring to tax the same. Thus we direct the AO to assess the peak credit being a sum of 1, 01, 40, 000/- as computed by assessee on the basis of deposits made in these six bank accounts with Axis Bank Ltd. in lieu of cash deposits added by the AO at 83, 48, 16, 130/-. Accordingly the AO will verify the peak and will make addition of the peak amount only. Accordingly this issue of assessee s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of addition of Rs. 83,48,16,130/- as unexplained cash deposits.
2. Consideration of peak credit theory for the unexplained cash deposits.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Confirmation of Addition of Rs. 83,48,16,130/- as Unexplained Cash Deposits:

The primary issue in this appeal concerns the confirmation of an addition amounting to Rs. 83,48,16,130/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to unexplained cash deposits in six undisclosed bank accounts held by the assessee. The AO, during the assessment proceedings, required the assessee to prove the source of these substantial cash deposits. The assessee responded with a voluntary disclosure petition, calculating the peak credit at Rs. 1,01,40,000/- based on deposits in the six bank accounts.

The AO, however, rejected the peak credit theory due to the lack of withdrawals from these accounts and added the entire amount of Rs. 83,48,16,130/- as unexplained cash credit/unexplained investment. The AO's rationale was that the deposits were a "one-way affair" with no withdrawals, making the peak credit theory inapplicable. The AO also noted that the entire amount was transferred to Maple Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. and subsequently to six private limited companies controlled by the assessee, who did not disclose these accounts in their audited financials.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO's decision, emphasizing the assessee's failure to disclose the true source of the deposits and rejecting the peak credit theory. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee was secretive and did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the cash deposits, confirming the addition made by the AO.

2. Consideration of Peak Credit Theory for the Unexplained Cash Deposits:

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order, arguing that he was engaged in providing accommodation entries and that the peak credit should be considered instead of the total deposits. The assessee's counsel contended that only the finance commission earned from these transactions should be taxed, not the entire deposit amount. The counsel referred to the assessee's statement recorded under Section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the assessee explained his modus operandi of providing accommodation entries.

The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances, noting that the assessee deposited cash and issued cheques of similar amounts on the same day, indicating that he was merely providing accommodation entries. The Tribunal referenced a similar case (ITO vs. Shri Piyush Poddar) where the peak credit theory was accepted under comparable circumstances. The Tribunal directed the AO to assess the peak credit amounting to Rs. 1,01,40,000/- as computed by the assessee, instead of the entire Rs. 83,48,16,130/-.

The Tribunal emphasized that the AO should verify the peak credit calculation and make the addition based on the peak amount only. This direction aligns with the principle that taxing the entire deposits without considering the withdrawals and the nature of transactions would be unreasonable.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the AO to assess the peak credit of Rs. 1,01,40,000/- after verification, instead of the total unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 83,48,16,130/-. The decision highlights the importance of considering the nature of transactions and the peak credit theory in cases involving unexplained cash deposits.