2016 (5) TMI 756 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash deposits in bank account - receipt of sale of gold and various withdrawals of the bank accounts - Held that - To meet the medical expenditure cash used to be withdrawn and kept with the assessee and re-deposited in the bank account. As far as sale of gold by the assessee to Maxpro India is concerned the evidence on record shows that Maxpro India had issued purchase vouchers for having purchased gold from the assessee and having made payments in cash for such purchase of gold. Copy of the purchase vouchers have been filed before us. A perusal of the same shows that Maxpro India to whom gold was sold on 02.04.2010 and 31.10.2011 is assessed to tax having PAN NO.ABCPA 3898 M. Before CIT(A) assessee also filed a copy of the bank statement of Maxpro India with ICICIC bank from the period 10.12.2011 to 05.12.2013. The address in the bank statement is 89, Burtolla Street, Kolkata-700007. The assessee has filed a copy of the licence issued by Kolkata Municipal Corporation which shows that Maxpro India having address at 89., Burtolla Street, Kolkata-700007 was licenced to use the aforesaid terms for office as well as retail sale of non food items. In the light of the above documentary evidence the failure of the department to procure the presence of Maxpro India for verification of the claim made by the assessee remains unexplained. We are of the view that in the light of the documentary evidence on record the assessee has successfully explained the sale of gold through Maxpro India and the conclusions to the contrary by the revenue authorities cannot be sustained. Since the sale of gold is held to be properly explained the sale proceedings of the gold and withdrawals from the bank account was sufficiently explained the cash deposits in the bank account. The anomaly pointed out by CIT(A) is that on 19.04.2010 cash of ₹ 3,00,000/- was withdrawn from ICICI Bank and on the very same day deposit of ₹ 49,000/- is made in ICICI bank at Bikaner. As already stated it can be seen from the cash book of the assessee that as on 19.04.2010 there was the availability of cash as on 19.04.2010 even after withdrawal of ₹ 3,00,000/- to the extent of ₹ 73,000/-. In such circumstances we are of the view that there cannot be any adverse inference drawn from these circumstances. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the addition made by the AO and sustained by CIT(A) deserves to be deleted - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts.
2. Verification of sale of gold and source of cash deposits.
3. Anomaly in cash withdrawals and deposits.

Issue 1: Unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts
The Assessee, an individual deriving income from house property and other sources, filed a return declaring total income for AY 2011-12. Cash deposits totaling &8377; 22,53,262/- and &8377; 12,26,500/- were made in ICICI Bank Ltd. The Assessing Officer (AO) questioned the source of these funds, which the Assessee explained as proceeds from the sale of gold and re-deposits. However, the AO doubted the sale of gold, citing inability to verify the buyer's existence. An anomaly was noted where cash was withdrawn in Kolkata and deposited on the same day in Bikaner. The AO treated the cash deposits as unexplained income, adding &8377; 34,79,762/- to the total income.

Issue 2: Verification of sale of gold and source of cash deposits
The Assessee contended that the sale of gold was genuine, providing purchase bills and evidence of the buyer's existence. The Assessee obtained the buyer's trade license and bank statements to prove their business activity. The Tribunal found the Assessee's evidence satisfactory, holding that the sale of gold was adequately explained. The AO's doubts were dismissed, and the cash deposits were deemed justified based on the sale proceeds and withdrawals from the bank account.

Issue 3: Anomaly in cash withdrawals and deposits
Regarding the anomaly of cash withdrawals and deposits on the same day in different locations, the Tribunal observed that the Assessee had sufficient cash availability even after withdrawals. The Tribunal concluded that no adverse inference could be drawn from these circumstances. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the peak credit issue did not arise as the source of funds was fully explained by the Assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A).

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Assessee, finding the explanations provided regarding the cash deposits, sale of gold, and cash movements satisfactory. The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were unjustified, and the Assessee's appeal was allowed.