2022 (11) TMI 407 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash deposits - difference in sales between periods from July December 2016 and July December 2015 on the ground that such cash sales are made to unidentifiable persons and the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the sales and has made substantial cash deposit during demonetization period and the assessee failed to substantiate the source of the cash deposit - HELD THAT - Merely filing the details such as cash book, ledger, purchase details, VAT returns, etc are not sufficient especially when the assessee had made huge cash sales during the demonetization period as compared to the earlier year during the same period. In our opinion, the matter has not been properly adjudicated in the way the same should have been adjudicated. It is settled proposition of law that the powers of CIT (Appeals) are co-terminus with that of the powers of Assessing Officer. In the instant case, although the AO has categorically asked the assessee to substantiate the huge cash deposits during the demonetization period by giving PAN numbers of so called purchasers, ;the assessee has not filed such details and the learned CIT (Appeals) without verifying the pay in slips along with the bank statements was carried away by the submissions made by the assessee. We deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of CIT (Appeals) with a direction to adjudicate the issue afresh after considering the nature of huge cash deposit made in large number of Rs.2000 currency notes in the bank - Needless to say the CIT (Appeals) shall give due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The grounds raised by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Addition of cash deposits during demonetization period.
2. Deletion of addition by CIT (Appeals).
3. Challenge of CIT (Appeals) order by Revenue before Tribunal.
4. Dispute over the genuineness of cash sales and source of cash deposits.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relating to Assessment Year 2017-18, concerning the addition of cash deposits made during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer observed substantial cash deposits in the assessee's bank account and questioned the source of these deposits, particularly during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.1,77,92,718 to the total income of the assessee under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, attributing it to the difference in sales between specific periods.

2. The CIT (Appeals) deleted the addition by emphasizing that the assessee had provided details of sales, purchases, and other relevant documents, thereby discharging the primary onus of proving the sources of the cash deposits. The CIT (Appeals) noted that the Assessing Officer did not doubt the purchases or stock available and held that the onus was on the Revenue to prove the details furnished by the assessee were not genuine. Consequently, the CIT (Appeals) concluded that the addition could not be sustained.

3. Aggrieved by the CIT (Appeals) order, the Revenue appealed before the Tribunal, challenging the deletion of the addition. The Revenue raised grounds asserting that the CIT (Appeals) erred in granting relief to the assessee, failed to appreciate the abnormal increase in sales, and wrongly held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus of proving the sources for the cash deposits. The Departmental Representative argued that the CIT (Appeals) should have obtained details of purchasers during the demonetization period, especially concerning the large number of Rs.2000 notes deposited.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and evidence presented, found that the CIT (Appeals) had not properly adjudicated the matter. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the cash deposits during the demonetization period, particularly the deposit of a significant amount in Rs.2000 notes. It held that the CIT (Appeals) should have scrutinized the pay in slips and bank statements more thoroughly. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the issue to be reconsidered by the CIT (Appeals) to assess the nature of the cash deposits in Rs.2000 currency notes, emphasizing the importance of verifying the details provided by the assessee. The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of substantiating cash deposits during critical periods, the burden of proof on the assessee, and the need for thorough examination of evidence by the appellate authorities.