2019 (7) TMI 1369 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - unexplained cash deposits and cash withdrawals - HELD THAT - Assessing Officer on the basis of AIR information received that the assessee has deposited cash in his bank account reopened the assessment. While doing so he had observed that no return has been filed by the assessee for A. Y.2010-11 which is discernable from the copy of the reasons placed at paper book pages 4 5. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee was having two PAN numbers the reason of which is best known to the assessee. When AO had information related to the other PAN number not being used by assessee for filing of return of income and since the assessee has not surrendered the duplicate PAN therefore it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment based on wrong information. AO in the instant case had done due verification with respect to the PAN number and had found that no return of income was filed in that PAN. In view of the above and in view of the detailed reasoning given by the CIT(A) while upholding the validity of reassessment proceedings no infirmity in the same. Accordingly the same is upheld. The various decisions relied the assessee are not applicable to the facts of the present case especially when in non of the cases the assessee was having two PAN numbers.The ground raised by the assessee on the issue of reopening is accordingly dismissed. Addition u/s 68 - cash deposit in bank account - assessee claimed deposit relates to substantial cash withdrawn and out of opening cash in hand - HELD THAT - The assessee has declared income of 23, 48, 906/- which includes agricultural income of 4, 39, 876/-. The assessee during the current year has declared an income of 26, 79, 460/- after claiming deduction chapter VI-A. I find the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings has also filed the following cash flow statement to substantiate the deposit of cash in the bank account Rejection of the cash flow statement is due to non consideration of the opening cash balance and non consideration of the earlier cash withdrawals which were utilized again for deposit in the bank account. As find from the assessment order that the AO had presumed that the earlier cash withdrawals were consumed for house hold expenses and not available for re-deposit. This in my opinion cannot be accepted in absence of any evidence with the AO that the assessee has infact consumed such huge cash and incurred huge expenditure for some other purpose such as any capital expenditure or for some marriage function in the family etc. When the assessee is showing huge income and also having agricultural income in the preceding years as well as during the current year therefore non consideration of the opening cash balance as on 01.04.2009 in my opinion is also incorrect. So far as the cash flow statement is concerned the assessee has shown the opening balance at 10, 82, 297/- and closing cash balance at 6, 79, 942/-. Even if the opening cash balance at 10, 82, 297/-is considered to be higher however the same cannot be considered as nil. If a reasonable amount of opening cash balance of 50% of the above amount is considered and the withdrawal from the bank made earlier is considered as available for redeposit in the bank account then also there appears to be sufficient cash balance available to the assessee for deposit in the bank account. No addition is called for on account of cash deposit made in the bank account and the assessee in my opinion has successfully explained the source of cash deposit in the bank account. Therefore set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Addition of ?13,13,000 as unexplained cash deposits.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Reassessment Proceedings:

The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on AIR information that the assessee made cash deposits of ?60,55,000 in his savings bank account and had not filed the Return of Income for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11. The assessee contended that the actual cash deposits amounted to ?34,22,000 and that the Return of Income was duly filed under Section 139(1) of the Act on 26.07.2010. The CIT(A) observed that the reopening was done with respect to a different PAN (AKOPB2313B) held by the appellant, whereas the Return of Income was filed using PAN (AAHPB3067B). Since the appellant did not surrender the duplicate PAN, the AO's action was justified. The CIT(A) upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings, dismissing the assessee's challenge.

The Tribunal also upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings, noting that the AO had conducted due verification with respect to the PAN number and found no return filed for that PAN. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoning and dismissed the ground raised by the assessee regarding the reopening.

2. Addition of ?13,13,000 as Unexplained Cash Deposits:

The AO, upon reassessment, found that the actual cash deposits amounted to ?34,20,000 instead of ?60,55,000. The AO did not accept the opening cash balance of ?10,82,297 and treated ?13,13,000 as unexplained. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, stating that the assessee failed to provide a direct nexus between cash withdrawals and cash deposits.

The assessee argued that the opening cash balance was duly shown in the balance sheet as of 31.03.2009 and that copies of bank statements and descriptions of the source of cash deposits were provided. The assessee also contended that the AO's presumption that earlier cash withdrawals were consumed was based on surmises and without evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the AO presumed earlier cash withdrawals were consumed for household expenses without any evidence of such consumption. The Tribunal found that the assessee had shown substantial income and agricultural income in preceding and current years. The Tribunal opined that the non-consideration of the opening cash balance and earlier withdrawals was incorrect. Even if a reasonable amount of the opening cash balance (50%) was considered, sufficient cash balance was available for deposit in the bank account. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition of ?13,13,000, setting aside the order of the CIT(A).

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings but directed the deletion of the addition of ?13,13,000 as unexplained cash deposits, thereby partly allowing the appeal filed by the assessee. The order was pronounced in the open court on 24.07.2019.