2023 (2) TMI 804 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Unexplained cash deposits - HELD THAT - Merely because, the assessee has not produced the confirmation from other debtors, it does not mean that entire sales were not made to these debtors - we are of the considered view that the nature of business of kirana merchants, who is engaged in the sale of vegetables, dry fish and groceries are mostly by way of cash, wherein, AO has not disputed the fact of cash deposits in the assessee s bank account. In the absence of any dispute regarding the cash deposits are arising out of the cash sales by the AO in the original assessment and in the absence of any contrary findings by the Ld.AO, cash deposits cannot be treated as unexplained. Wife of the assessee is also a regular filer of income tax returns who has paid to the assessee, as per findings of Ld.CIT(A). Considering peculiarity of the trade in which the assessee is engaged, we find that the assessee has source for the cash deposits made for the purpose of investment in residential property. Additions cannot be made merely based on assumptions by the revenue authorities. We, therefore allow this ground raised by the assessee. Estimation of profit at 3.5% of the turnover - We are not inclined to intervene in the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) on this ground. Hence, this ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of reopening assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Justification of relief granted by CIT(A).
3. Profit estimation at 3.5% directed by CIT(A).
4. Liability for interest under section 234B of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arguing that the reassessment was based on the same facts as the original assessment. The appellant contended that the reopening was a 'change of opinion' and referred to legal precedents to support their case. The Tribunal noted that the original assessment did not dispute the cash deposits, and the Principal Commissioner found it necessary to re-examine the sources of cash for property purchase. The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were not unexplained, considering the nature of the kirana merchant's business and the absence of contrary findings by the Assessing Officer.

2. The CIT(A) partially granted relief to the appellant after considering written submissions explaining the source of cash deposits and cash sales. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat a portion of the cash deposits as unexplained income while allowing relief based on the peculiarities of the kirana merchant's trade. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument regarding the source of cash deposits, leading to the partial allowance of the appeal.

3. The CIT(A) directed the estimation of profit at 3.5% of turnover, a decision challenged by the appellant. The Tribunal, after reviewing the facts and circumstances, upheld the CIT(A)'s estimation as reasonable. The Tribunal declined to intervene in the CIT(A)'s decision on profit estimation, thereby dismissing the appellant's challenge on this ground.

4. The appellant disputed the charge of interest under section 234B of the Act. The Tribunal noted that this issue was consequential and required no separate adjudication. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's denial of liability for interest payment under section 234B, stating that it was a consequential matter.

5. The Tribunal concluded that the appeal was partly allowed based on the findings related to the validity of reopening assessment and the profit estimation. The Tribunal dismissed certain grounds of appeal as general in nature and not requiring specific adjudication. The decision was pronounced in open court on 16th February 2023.