2020 (12) TMI 665 - AT - Income Tax

Cash deposits as unexplained investments taxed u/s.69 - section 44AD applicability - HELD THAT - Once part of bank credit is accepted as turnover on presumptive basis and has taxed accordingly by applying the provisions of section 44AD then there is no reason for the AO to take a different view for remaining part of cash deposits found in the same bank account and treat the same as unexplained investments to be taxed u/s.69 because it is an admitted that the assessee has proved with necessary evidences that she has received cash from business activity of civil contract and interior decoration work. As admitted fact that said activity has not been disclosed in income-tax return filed for relevant year and the assessee has not maintained regular books of account for the said activity. AO having accepted the explanation furnished by the assessee regarding her business activity and source of income for cash deposits found in her bank account, he ought to have accepted the explanation furnished by the assessee towards total cash deposits found in her savings bank account. In this case, the Assessing Officer has accepted part of cash deposits as out of her business receipts and part of cash deposits as her unexplained investments, without brought on record any cogent reasons to justify different view taken on cash deposits found in her bank account during the same financial year. The learned CIT(A) has also simply upheld the findings of the Assessing Officer without assigning any reason why explanation furnished by the assessee regarding source of income for cash deposits found in her bank account was accepted in part, cannot be accepted for remaining cash deposits found in the same bank account. AO as well as CIT(A) were erred in assessing part of cash deposits as unexplained investments to be taxed u/s.69 and part of cash deposits as receipts from business liable to be taxed u/s.44AD - Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to treat the total cash deposits found in her bank account maintained with Bank of India, West Mambalam branch as receipts from her civil contract business and estimate 8% net profit on total receipts as per the provisions of section 44AD - Appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Treatment of cash deposits found in the assessee's undisclosed bank account.
3. Application of Section 44AD for estimating income from business receipts.
4. Determination of unexplained investments under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Reopening of Assessment:
The assessment for the years 2009-10 to 2011-12 was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the non-disclosure of a savings bank account maintained with the Bank of India, West Mambalam branch. The notice under Section 148 was issued, and the assessee responded by stating that the originally filed return should be treated as the return in response to the notice. The reopening was based on the belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.

2. Treatment of Cash Deposits:
During the reassessment, it was found that the assessee had deposited significant amounts of cash in the undisclosed bank account. The assessee explained that these deposits were from business receipts related to civil contract work and interior decorations, along with an amount received from the cancellation of a sale agreement. The Assessing Officer (AO) accepted the explanation for ?25 lakhs but treated the remaining deposits as unexplained investments, estimating peak credit of ?21,16,013/- and adding it under Section 69.

3. Application of Section 44AD:
The AO also treated the balance cash deposits as business receipts and estimated an 8% net profit under Section 44AD of the Act. The assessee argued that once the bank credits were accepted as business turnover, the entire amount should be treated uniformly under Section 44AD without bifurcating it into explained and unexplained parts.

4. Determination of Unexplained Investments:
The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision to estimate peak credit for unexplained investments and apply an 8% profit rate on the remaining deposits. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the entire cash deposits should be treated as business receipts, as the AO had already accepted part of the deposits as business-related. The Tribunal directed the AO to treat the total cash deposits as receipts from the civil contract business and estimate an 8% net profit on the total receipts under Section 44AD.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the AO and CIT(A) erred in treating part of the cash deposits as unexplained investments and part as business receipts. It directed that the total cash deposits found in the assessee's bank account should be treated as receipts from the civil contract business, with an 8% net profit estimated under Section 44AD for all the assessment years involved. The appeals were partly allowed in favor of the assessee.