2012 (5) TMI 332 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of bank deposits u/s 69 - Assessee assessed u/s 44AF - assessee is engaged in the business of supply of building material on retail basis and submitted its return of income as on 31.03.2004, 16.11.2005 and 31.03.2007 for the relevant assessment years 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2006-07 under section 139(4) of the Act - The assessee prepared profit and loss account, Balance Sheet and Trading Account and also noted turnover calculated on the basis of these katcha books - Assessing Officer denied computation of income under section 44AF of the Act to assessee on the ground that he has maintained books of account in all three years but by going through accounts prepared by assessee and argued by the Counsel that these are maintained by assessee on the basis of rough/katcha books where sales and purchases are recorded and these are strictly followed - Held that the deposits and withdrawal are matching with the turnover for all the three assessment years and assessee has declared its income u/s. 44AF of the Act and moreover, the assessee s receipts has nexus with deposits, the deposits assessed by the lower authorities u/s. 69 and 69C of the Act is without any basis, hence deleted - Decided in favor of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
Appeals against addition of bank deposits under section 69 of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The appeals concern the confirmation by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) of the Assessing Officer's action in adding bank deposits under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, which have a direct connection to the assessee's receipts assessed under section 44AF of the Act. The common grounds raised by the assessee challenge the CIT(A)'s order on various legal and factual bases, including failure to consider relevant provisions and lack of opportunity to explain the deposits.

2. The assessee, engaged in retail building material supply, filed returns for the relevant assessment years under section 139(4) of the Act. Assessments were initiated under section 147/143(3) by the Assessing Officer, contending that the bank deposits were unexplained. The assessee, covered under section 44AF due to turnover below Rs.40 lakhs, maintained 'katcha' exercise books as per the deeming provisions of the Act. The turnover details for the years in question were presented to support the assessee's position.

3. The Assessing Officer's denial of income computation under section 44AF due to maintained books of accounts was challenged by the assessee, emphasizing the reliance on 'katcha' books for turnover calculations. The Tribunal found that the turnover and deposits were closely related, indicating a business nexus. The absence of evidence showing no connection between receipts and deposits led to the deletion of additions made under sections 69 and 69C of the Act.

4. Citing the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a similar case, the Tribunal emphasized that under section 44AF, the assessee is not obligated to explain individual cash deposits unless unrelated to gross receipts. The Tribunal concluded that the deposits added by the lower authorities lacked a legal basis and were therefore deleted, aligning with the High Court's ruling.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals, highlighting the correlation between turnover, receipts, and deposits to invalidate the additions made under sections 69 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The decision was pronounced in favor of the assessee on 25.11.2011.

This comprehensive analysis delves into the legal and factual aspects of the judgment, outlining the grounds of appeal, the factual background, legal interpretations, and the ultimate decision in favor of the assessee based on the established legal principles and factual evidence presented during the proceedings.