2014 (9) TMI 1073 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash deposits in the Saving Bank - Held that - AO in his remand report could not bring out any fact that the cash withdrawn from Saving Bank Account and partnership overdraft account was used for other purpose anywhere else then, merely because there was a time gap between withdrawal of cash and its further deposit to the bank account, the amount can not be treated as income from undisclosed sources u/s 69 of the Act in the hands of the assessee.AO rejected the explanation of the assessee on hyper technical basis which is not acceptable. From the decisions relied by the Ld. D.R. we are of the view that the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable as in the present case the explanation offered by the assessee is reliable and acceptable on the touchstone of the prudence of an ordinary man but merely on the ground that the act of assessee created huge interest liability on partnership firm does not enable revenue authorities to consider the cash withdrawn and it deposit to same bank account after a substantial gap of time, as unexplained income u/s 69 A of the Act. Hence, we reach to a conclusion that the AO made addition without any legal and justified reason which was rightly deleted by the CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee

Issues:
1. Addition of unexplained cash deposits in the Saving Bank Ale with HDFC Bank under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the cash withdrawals and subsequent deposits by the assessee were adequately explained.
3. Justification of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of unexplained cash deposits in the Saving Bank Ale with HDFC Bank under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 24,38,000 under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, deeming it as unexplained money deposited by the assessee. The AO concluded that the cash deposits were not adequately explained by the assessee, leading to the addition. However, the CIT(A) later deleted this addition after considering the submissions and evidence presented. The CIT(A) found that the cash withdrawals were supported by the cash flow statement, and there was no evidence to suggest that the withdrawn amounts were used for any other purpose. The CIT(A) observed that there was no negative cash balance at any point, and the amounts withdrawn were subsequently deposited back into the bank. The CIT(A) also highlighted that it is not mandatory for an individual to keep savings only in a bank account. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the AO's addition lacked legal justification as the explanation provided by the assessee was reliable and acceptable.

Issue 2: Whether the cash withdrawals and subsequent deposits by the assessee were adequately explained.

The AO questioned the logic behind the cash withdrawals and subsequent deposits made by the assessee, deeming it impractical and illogical. However, the assessee provided a detailed explanation supported by the cash flow statement, showing withdrawals from both the saving bank account and the capital account of the partnership firm. The AR argued that the amounts withdrawn were subsequently deposited back into the bank without being utilized elsewhere. The Tribunal agreed with the AR's arguments, stating that the time gap between withdrawals and deposits does not justify treating the amount as undisclosed income. The Tribunal emphasized that the explanation provided by the assessee was reasonable and in line with the conduct of an ordinary individual.

Issue 3: Justification of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO.

The CIT(A) based the deletion of the addition on the evidence presented, including the cash flow statement and audit reports of the partnership firm. The CIT(A) noted that no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee, as there was no indication that the withdrawn amounts were misused. The CIT(A) also referred to relevant case laws supporting the assessee's position. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision, highlighting that the AO's rejection of the explanation was hyper-technical and lacked legal basis. The Tribunal concluded that the addition made by the AO was unjustified and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of unexplained cash deposits in the saving bank account.

This detailed analysis outlines the key issues raised in the judgment and provides a comprehensive overview of the arguments presented by both the Revenue and the assessee, along with the reasoning behind the final decision of the Tribunal.

← Previous Next →