2022 (4) TMI 591 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69C - unexplained payment of Customs Duty - As per CIT since the cash deposits in the bank account are much more than the cash sales the payment of Customs Duty in cash remained unexplained and accordingly, the addition made by the AO was sustained - HELD THAT - CIT(Appeals) misunderstood the facts and it is the finding that the assessee made Customs Duty in cash which is contrary to the record. The documents placed before us in the form of bank book, the loan confirmation, the bank statement of the lender clearly show that the assessee has taken loan of ₹ 13 lakhs on 04.04.2016, assessee also deposited cash sales into the bank account from 04.04.2016 to 08.04.2016 amounting to ₹ 14 lakhs and finally the Customs Duty of ₹ 25,03,813/- was made on 08.04.2016 by way of Demand Draft (DD). All these facts goes to show that the assessee has never paid Customs Duty in cash but it was paid by way of Demand Draft after obtaining loan of ₹ 13 lakhs and the balance is from out of cash sales made from 04.04.2016 to 08.04.2016. Thus no hesitation to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of Customs Duty paid by the assessee which was treated as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C - Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Addition of unexplained expenditure towards Custom Duty under section 69C of the Income Tax Act.
- Misinterpretation by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the mode of payment of Custom Duty.
- Source of payment for Custom Duty questioned by the Assessing Officer.

Analysis:
1. Addition of unexplained expenditure towards Custom Duty under section 69C:
The appellant, engaged in the sale of electric & electronic goods, filed a return of income declaring &8377; 3,17,230. However, the Assessing Officer made an addition of &8377; 25,03,813 as unexplained expenditure towards Custom Duty. The AO questioned the source of payment for the Custom Duty, as the capital account of the appellant showed a negative balance. Despite explanations provided by the appellant regarding the loan obtained and the payment made through the current account of the business, the AO treated the Custom Duty payment as unexplained expenditure under section 69C. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this addition, citing discrepancies in cash deposits and cash sales.

2. Misinterpretation by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals):
The appellant contended that the Customs Duty was not paid in cash but through a Demand Draft, supported by evidence from bank records and loan confirmations. The appellant clarified that the payment was made using a loan of &8377; 13 lakhs and cash sales amounting to &8377; 14 lakhs. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) incorrectly assumed that the payment was made in cash, leading to the sustained addition of the expenditure. The appellant's submissions, backed by documentary evidence, proved that the Customs Duty was not paid in cash but through legitimate means.

3. Source of payment for Custom Duty questioned by the Assessing Officer:
During the assessment proceedings, the appellant provided detailed information regarding the loan obtained and the subsequent payment of Custom Duty. The appellant's capital account, balance sheet, and bank statements clearly indicated the source of funds used for the Custom Duty payment. The Tribunal observed that the Customs Duty was indeed paid through a Demand Draft after obtaining a loan and utilizing cash sales proceeds. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's addition of the Custom Duty amount as unexplained expenditure under section 69C was unfounded, directing the deletion of the said addition and the re-computation of income for the relevant assessment year.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing the correct interpretation of facts and evidence presented, leading to the deletion of the disputed addition towards Custom Duty payment.