2021 (7) TMI 9 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained money u/s 69A - unexplained bank deposits - as argued cash deposited in the bank account represented the money collected from the customers and withdrawal is the payment to the vendors and to the shopkeepers - applicability of section 44AD - HELD THAT - Assessee is engaged in the business of hardware and tools, therefore, considering the totality of facts of the case, it is of the considered opinion that business activities carried out by the assessee cannot be simply rejected and the entire cash deposits cannot be brought to tax as unexplained income. The assessee in the instant case has filed purchase and sale bills before the learned CIT(A), therefore, the business activity is established. Further, there is no query either by the AO or by the learned CIT(A) regarding the utilization of the substantial withdrawals from the said bank account. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition made by the AO on account of cash deposits in the bank account. Since, the same AO in the subsequent assessment year has accepted the profit rate of 10.59% u/s 44AD of the Act, therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case, I am of the considered opinion that adoption of net profit @ 11% on the total bank deposits will meet the ends of the justice. I hold and direct accordingly. Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly partly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act
2. Addition of unexplained cash deposits under section 69A of the Act
3. Application of section 44AD for computing income
4. Rejection of theory of peak credit

Validity of Reassessment Proceedings:
The case involved the reassessment of an individual assessee for the Assessment Year 2011-12 due to unfiled income tax returns and substantial cash deposits in the bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act, leading to the addition of the cash deposits as unexplained money under section 69A. The assessee challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings, arguing lack of relevant material and approval under section 151 of the Act. However, the Tribunal found that the AO had valid reasons to believe income had escaped assessment, and the proceedings were upheld.

Addition of Unexplained Cash Deposits:
The AO added the cash deposits to the total income of the assessee as unexplained money under section 69A due to the inability of the assessee to substantiate the source of the deposits. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, stating that the assessee failed to provide supporting documents like sale bills and purchase bills to prove the deposits were related to business activities. The Tribunal, however, noted that the assessee had submitted relevant bills and documents, establishing the business activity of sale and purchase. Considering the AO's acceptance of a profit rate in a subsequent year, the Tribunal held that the addition of the cash deposits was not justified and directed the adoption of a net profit rate on the deposits.

Application of Section 44AD:
The assessee argued that income should have been computed under section 44AD of the Act, given the nature of the business activity. The CIT(A) rejected this argument, stating that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the claim. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, considering the submitted purchase and sale bills as evidence of the business activity. The Tribunal held that the business activities could not be dismissed, and the addition of the cash deposits was not warranted.

Rejection of Theory of Peak Credit:
The CIT(A) also rejected the theory of peak credit and previous cash withdrawals eligible for subsequent deposits. However, the Tribunal did not find these rejections in accordance with the facts of the case. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering all relevant documents and evidence, such as purchase and sale bills, to determine the legitimacy of the cash deposits and withdrawals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, directing the adoption of a net profit rate on the total bank deposits and overturning the addition of unexplained cash deposits. The judgment highlighted the significance of providing supporting documents to substantiate business activities and income sources in income tax assessments.