2022 (5) TMI 329 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69A unexplained cash seized - As contended during the course of hearing that it is clear from a perusal of the assessee's income tax return, computation and balance sheet that the impugned sum represents the accumulated balances as well as cash sales realized in liquor business - HELD THAT - We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival pleadings and find no reason to accept either party's foregoing submissions in entirety. This is for the reason that neither the assessee has been able to reconcile the liquor stock in trade with the sales/profits realized therefrom vis- -vis the cash seized nor the department could altogether rebut the foregoing prima facie evidence to this effect. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate that a lump sum addition of Rs. 25 lakhs than that in issue of sum of Rs. 37.35 lakhs would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs. 12.35 lakhs in other terms. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Correctness of 69A unexplained cash seized addition of Rs. 37.35 lakhs.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Correctness of 69A unexplained cash seized addition of Rs. 37.35 lakhs:
The appellant contested the invoking of Section 69A by the Assessing Officer, arguing that the seized sum of Rs. 37.35 lakhs was voluntarily admitted as business income in its statement under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act. The cash was seized during a routine vehicle check, with the possessors unable to provide valid sources, leading to its seizure by the police and subsequent sharing of information with the Income Tax Department. The appellant could not substantiate that the seized amount was from liquor sales, and discrepancies were noted in the cash book and bank statements. The appellant's explanation during the appeal proceedings was not accepted, emphasizing the importance of looking 'through' transactions and applying the principle of 'substance over form.'

The CIT(A) detailed the suspect modus operandi adopted by the appellant, highlighting the non-maintenance of regular books of account and discrepancies in financial records. The judgment referred to various case laws emphasizing that income tax liability is determined based on available materials, surrounding circumstances, human conduct, and the overall balance of probability. The judgment cited cases like Sumati Dayal Vs CIT and CIT, WB-II Vs Durga Prasad More to support the principle that the taxing authorities are entitled to examine the reality of transactions by considering the test of human probabilities. The confirmation documentation provided by the appellant was deemed insufficient, and the transactions were considered bogus, leading to the dismissal of the appeal grounds.

In the final decision, the Tribunal did not fully accept either party's submissions. Instead, a lump sum addition of Rs. 25 lakhs was deemed appropriate, providing relief of Rs. 12.35 lakhs to the appellant. The judgment emphasized that this decision should not set a precedent. The appeal was partly allowed based on this revised addition.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis and application of legal principles led to the partial allowance of the appellant's appeal, with a modified addition amount based on the evidence and circumstances presented during the proceedings.