2023 (8) TMI 1453 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s. 68 - as per DR assessee has failed to explain the source of cash deposited during demonetization period - CIT-A deleted addition As argued by AO cash withdrawals by the assessee are not near to the dates of cash deposits and when the cash was withdrawal for wages payments other purposes then there is no reason why such expenses were not incurred - as per AO assessee has prepared cash book in such a way showing cash withdrawals and cash deposits during demonetization period which is after thought and self serving - HELD THAT - We are in agreement with the conclusion drawn by the ld. CIT(A) that the appellant has duly given the site cash books as well as main cash book showing cash balance of Rs. 1,24,68,418/- and the cash deposited to its bank account was created due to huge opening cash balance of Rs. 10,95,290/- as on 01.04.2016, which was enhanced to Rs. 60,02,427/- after inclusion of cash withdrawal Rs. 50,50,000/- and deduction of some expenses during April 2016. We are also in agreement with the conclusion of ld. CIT(A) that as per audited books and return of income filed by the assessee before demonetization declaration, and amount of cash withdrawals from 01.04.2016 to till demonetization period amounting to Rs. 2,63,10,000/- which was higher than the cash withdrawals during immediately preceding FY 2015-16 amounting to Rs. 55,50,000/-. Keeping in view above noted factual position which has not been controverted by the AO or by DR we are inclined to agree with the conclusion drawn by the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has successfully demonstrated source of cash deposit to its bank account during demonetization period and hence not addition is called for. We are unable to see any ambiguity perversity or any valid reason to interfere with the findings arrived by the ld. CIT(A) and thus we uphold the same. Accordingly, grounds of revenue are dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ignoring impounded documents.
2. Pattern of cash deposits.
3. Lack of documentary evidence.
4. Discussion on cash in hand.
5. Perverse and erroneous order.
6. Grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other.

Summary:

1. Ignoring Impounded Documents:
The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred by ignoring impounded documents from M/s Omaxe Limited, which indicated that M/s Bhanu Infrabuild Private Limited had significant cash-in-hand as of 08.11.2016. The CIT(A) was said to have overlooked this crucial evidence.

2. Pattern of Cash Deposits:
The Revenue contended that there was no pattern of such substantial cash deposits in the previous year, suggesting that the CIT(A) failed to consider this anomaly.

3. Lack of Documentary Evidence:
The Revenue highlighted that the assessee did not provide documentary evidence to support its claim of maintaining cash balances at site offices for various exigencies. The CIT(A) was criticized for accepting the assessee's explanation without proper verification.

4. Discussion on Cash in Hand:
The Revenue claimed that the CIT(A) did not discuss the cash in hand as per impounded documents and focused only on the data commensuration of the assessee for both financial years.

5. Perverse and Erroneous Order:
The Revenue described the CIT(A)'s order as perverse and erroneous, arguing that it was not tenable on facts and in law.

6. Grounds of Appeal Without Prejudice:
The grounds of appeal were stated to be without prejudice to each other.

Judgment Details:

Assessment and Addition:
The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 1,24,50,000/- under Section 68 of the Act, observing that the assessee failed to explain the source of cash deposited during the demonetization period. The AO alleged that the cash withdrawals were not proximate to the dates of cash deposits and that the cash book was prepared in a self-serving manner.

CIT(A)'s Observations:
The CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee, noting that the assessee had explained the source of cash deposits by showing a cash balance as of 08.11.2016, created from opening cash as of 01.04.2016 and cash withdrawals till 08.11.2016. The CIT(A) found that the assessee usually maintained a high cash balance, corroborated by the IT and audit reports filed before demonetization.

Comparative Analysis:
The CIT(A) observed that the cash withdrawals and deposits were comparable for the financial years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The CIT(A) concluded that maintaining high cash balances was a routine business practice of the assessee and not unusual.

Legal Precedents:
The CIT(A) referred to jurisdictional High Court decisions in the cases of Kulwant Rai and Jaya Aggarwal, supporting the assessee's explanation of cash withdrawals as the source of subsequent cash deposits.

Final Decision:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, agreeing that the assessee successfully demonstrated the source of cash deposits during the demonetization period. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no ambiguity or perversity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming that the assessee had adequately explained the source of cash deposits during the demonetization period.