2018 (10) TMI 1382 - HC - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69A - source of cash deposits - entries made in the cash flow charts were not substantiated by any evidence - Held that - The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the authorities have not considered the figure of purchase and closing stock as per the VAT return deserves rejection. The assessee filed an income tax return showing the gross receipts of ₹ 9 lakhs, on the other hand, there were cash deposits made of more than ₹ 37 lakhs in the savings bank account. The assessee tried to explain the source of cash deposits by taking a stand that the actual sales were of ₹ 29 lakhs but were wrongly mentioned as ₹ 9 lakhs in the income tax return. The details of the purchases and copy of VAT return were withheld by the assessee on the excuse that same were not available. The AO got the copy of the VAT return from the Sales Tax Office in which the sales were mentioned amounting to ₹ 9,65,170/-. Before the AO the stand taken was that the appellant was not maintaining books of account, on the other hand with the VAT return, the appellant had filed Trading and Profit & Loss Account and the balance sheet. The appellant had withheld the material information available with him. All the three authorities below have recorded consistent findings of facts. The appellant has not been able to dispute the findings of facts much less to prove perversity. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Discrepancies in declared income and cash deposits.
3. Rejection of explanation for cash deposits.
4. Consideration of figures from VAT return.
5. Maintenance of books of account.
6. Consistency in findings of lower authorities.

Analysis:
1. Addition under Section 69A: The appellant contested the addition of Rs. 26,68,525 under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant argued that the source of cash deposits was explained and that the Assessing Officer erred in not considering the figures from the VAT return regarding purchases and closing stock. However, the contention was rejected, and the authorities upheld the addition.

2. Discrepancies in declared income and cash deposits: The appellant declared gross receipts of Rs. 9 lakhs but had cash deposits exceeding Rs. 37 lakhs in the savings account. The appellant claimed that actual sales were Rs. 29 lakhs, not Rs. 9 lakhs as mentioned in the return. The Assessing Officer obtained the VAT return, revealing sales of Rs. 9,65,170. The appellant's failure to provide details and withholding information raised concerns about discrepancies.

3. Rejection of explanation for cash deposits: The appellant's explanation for cash deposits, including withdrawals, advances, and unsecured loans, lacked substantiation. The Assessing Officer rejected claims of withdrawals and advances due to lack of evidence. Only unsecured loans of Rs. 1,40,000 were substantiated, leading to the addition under Section 69A.

4. Consideration of figures from VAT return: The appellant's failure to disclose material information, such as details of purchases and VAT return, hindered the assessment process. Despite claiming non-maintenance of books of account, the appellant had filed a Trading and Profit & Loss Account along with the balance sheet, creating inconsistencies in the information provided.

5. Maintenance of books of account: The appellant's assertion of not maintaining books of account conflicted with the submission of financial statements in the VAT return. The discrepancy between declared income and actual cash deposits, coupled with missing purchase details, raised doubts about the accuracy and transparency of the appellant's financial records.

6. Consistency in findings of lower authorities: All three authorities, including the Tribunal, concurred on the facts and findings of the case. The appellant failed to challenge these findings effectively or demonstrate any flaws in the assessment process. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision was upheld, and no grounds for interference were found, leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to the absence of any substantial question of law.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed various issues related to the addition under Section 69A, discrepancies in declared income and cash deposits, rejection of explanations, consideration of figures from the VAT return, maintenance of books of account, and the consistency in findings among lower authorities. The detailed analysis highlighted the appellant's challenges, the authorities' responses, and the rationale behind upholding the assessment order, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.