2019 (9) TMI 457 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - unexplained Cash Credits - assessee's return was picked up for scrutiny under CASS - Ld. AR offered to demonstrate this claim by addressing the vouchers of any specific day on a test check basis stating that he would be able to show that 35% of the sum total of the said date has been reflected in the books - HELD THAT - The impugned order is set aside back to the file of the AO with the direction to verify the stated claim of the assessee namely that the sums reflected by her as her income of a specific day is the 35% of the sum total of the receipts of the vouchers of the specific date. It is directed that in case the assessee succeeds in demonstrating her claim, the addition is to be deleted. However in case after carrying out the said verification, the claim is found to be not acceptable, it is directed that the AO necessarily shall confront the deficiencies noticed to the assessee and after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the spirit of the suggestions made hereinabove shall then pass a speaking order in accordance with law.

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the CIT(A) order.
2. Addition of ?5,65,000 under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits.
3. Justification of cash deposits in the assessee's HDFC Bank account.
4. Verification of the business model and income declaration by the assessee.
5. Proposal for a remand to the Assessing Officer (AO) for verification.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the CIT(A) Order:
The assessee challenged the correctness of the CIT(A)'s order dated 16.07.2018, asserting that it was "bad in law." The Tribunal acknowledged the need to review whether the CIT(A) had appropriately handled the evidence and claims presented by the assessee.

2. Addition of ?5,65,000 under Section 68:
The CIT(A) sustained the addition of ?5,65,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to unexplained cash credits. The AO had initially made this addition, arguing that the cash deposits in the assessee's HDFC Bank account were not satisfactorily explained. The AO's assessment pointed out discrepancies between the bills produced and the cash book entries, suggesting that the assessee managed the bills to justify the cash deposits.

3. Justification of Cash Deposits in HDFC Bank Account:
The assessee claimed that the cash deposits were business receipts from a boutique business, where the income was shared with tailors in a 35:65 ratio. The AO found discrepancies in the bills and cash book entries, leading to the conclusion that the deposits were unexplained. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's findings, despite the assessee providing further evidence during the appeal.

4. Verification of Business Model and Income Declaration:
The assessee argued that the AO and CIT(A) failed to understand the business model, which involved sharing income with tailors. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's explanation that only 35% of the total receipts were her share, and thus reflected in the cash book, was consistently claimed but not properly examined by the AO or CIT(A). The Tribunal emphasized the need to verify whether the cash book accurately reflected 35% of the amounts in the vouchers.

5. Proposal for Remand to AO for Verification:
Both parties agreed that the issue should be remanded back to the AO for verification. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the assessee's claim that the sums reflected as her income were 35% of the total receipts for specific dates. If the assessee's claim is verified, the addition should be deleted. If not, the AO must confront the deficiencies and provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to address them before passing a speaking order.

Additional Observations and Suggestions:
The Tribunal made several constructive suggestions aimed at improving the tax compliance environment for new and small businesses. These included the creation of a Tax Advisory Cell, the introduction of a Tax Compliance Scheme for new ventures, and the need for nurturing successful small businesses to ensure they remain tax compliant. These suggestions were forwarded to the Chairman, CBDT, for consideration and potential implementation.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the case being remanded back to the AO for verification of the assessee's claims. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of a thorough examination of the facts and providing the assessee with a fair opportunity to present her case.

← Previous Next →