2023 (8) TMI 496 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69A - assessee could not explain the source of cash seized from the residence of the assessee - HELD THAT - Availability of cash in our opinion, cannot be doubted. Even if the assessee has not filed the cash book, however, the circumstantial evidence cannot be simply brushed aside especially when the assessee is having taxable income We are of the considered opinion that the availability of cash should not have been doubted as unexplained. It is also pertinent to mention here that when the search took place on the date of Diwali at the residence of the assessee, it is unbelievable that the assessee cannot have a single rupee since the lower authorities have not even given credit of a single rupee. In this view of the matter, we set aside the order of the CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the addition of unexplained money u/s 69A and the availability of cash balance in the case of the assessee.

Issue 1: Addition of unexplained money u/s 69A:
The assessee, engaged in the business of photo accessories, had cash seized by the Hyderabad Police during a search and seizure operation. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 3,27,650/- u/s 69A of the I.T. Act as the assessee failed to explain the source of the cash seized. The CIT (A) upheld this addition, noting that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence despite having a substantial turnover and maintaining audited books of accounts. The appellant's submissions during the appeal proceedings were deemed generic, lacking specific evidence to support the claimed cash balance. Multiple opportunities were given to the appellant to provide necessary documentation, but the appellant failed to do so. The CIT (A) confirmed the addition, dismissing the grounds raised by the appellant.

Issue 2: Availability of cash balance:
The appellant challenged the addition of unexplained money by the Assessing Officer and the CIT (A). The appellant, a regular tax filer with a history of declaring income and maintaining audited books of accounts, argued that the cash balance was justified based on past income and turnover. The appellant's counsel presented evidence of the appellant's income over the last five years, demonstrating a consistent pattern of declaring and paying taxes on income. The appellant's closing cash balance for the previous year was also highlighted to support the claim of having sufficient sources for the cash balance in question. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments, noting the appellant's regular compliance with tax obligations and the consistent declaration of income. Considering the appellant's financial history and the circumstances of the search operation coinciding with Diwali, the Tribunal concluded that the availability of the cash balance should not have been doubted as unexplained. The Tribunal set aside the CIT (A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of unexplained money u/s 69A.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, emphasizing the importance of considering the appellant's financial history and compliance with tax obligations in assessing the availability of cash balance.