2025 (1) TMI 1545 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of cash deposits in bank account - HELD THAT - We have also given consideration to the argument of the DR to remand the matter to examine the opening balance of the cash in hand perpetually shown by the assessee. The assessee since expired and the case was represented through legal heir. We have given our considerable thought about the entire fact and find that no useful purpose would be served to enquire into the amounts deposited or withdrawn 12 years back. At the same time the entire cash deposits also cannot be considered as undisclosed income keeping in view the earning of income to the tune by the assessee and it is also a fact that the assessee had agricultural income to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs. The assessee has also received cash as part of sale consideration pertaining to the agricultural land. We are not in agreement with the cash flow submitted by the assessee as cash flow for the period from 10.12.2012 to 29.03.2012 cannot be accepted as the same cash was deposited in the year 2016 in the un-rebuttable evidence that the assessee has been continuously withdrawing cash in the year 2013-14 2014-15 and 2015-16 also. No further enquiries are feasible as the assessee stand deceased. Hence keeping in view the entire contents and facts specific to the instant case we deem it appropriate to determine that the assessee could have had cash in hand of Rs.30 lakhs and the remaining can be treated as undisclosed income. Invocation of provision of section 115BBE - As relying on the case S.MI.L.E Microfinance Limited 2024 (11) TMI 1444 - MADRAS HIGH COURT the ground of appeal of the assessee on the issue of Section 115BBE of the Act is hereby allowed.

Summary

The core legal questions considered in this appeal include:

1. Whether the addition of Rs.68,50,000/- as unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act was justified.

2. Whether the application of the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act for taxation of the said amount was legally valid.

3. Whether the levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D of the Act was appropriate.

4. Whether the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC of the Act was justified.

5. Whether the lower authorities erred in not properly appreciating the facts, submissions, and evidence submitted by the assessee, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

Issue 1: Legitimacy of Addition of Cash Deposits under Section 69A

The legal framework under Section 69A relates to unexplained cash credits or deposits in bank accounts, where the burden lies on the assessee to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of such deposits. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs.68,50,000/- to the assessee's income on account of unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] confirmed this addition, observing that the assessee failed to produce credible, cogent, and contemporaneous evidence to establish the source of the deposits. The CIT(A) noted the absence of sale deeds or documentary proof for the claimed sale of immovable property and the lack of evidence regarding ownership or sale of a purported Etios car. Further, the appellant's cash flow statement was not supported by adequate evidence for the relevant period, and the continuous large cash withdrawals and deposits during the demonetization period were not satisfactorily explained.

In the appellate tribunal, the assessee submitted a detailed cash flow statement from FY 2012-13 to FY 2015-16, showing opening and closing cash balances, cash inflows (including agricultural income and other receipts), and cash outflows (including cash deposits and agricultural expenses). The assessee argued that the large cash deposits in FY 2016-17 were accumulated from cash withdrawals in earlier years and agricultural income.

The Departmental Representative (DR) contested this, arguing that it was unreasonable to hold large cash sums idle for several years, especially given the continuous cash withdrawals during those years. The tribunal examined the bank statements and found that the cash withdrawals in FY 2012-13 were largely for specific purposes and were not retained as cash in hand. The pattern of transactions indicated that the cash was not accumulated for later deposit but was used shortly after withdrawal.

Considering that the assessee was deceased and further inquiry was impracticable, the tribunal concluded that the entire cash deposits could not be accepted as legitimate. However, acknowledging the assessee's income sources including agricultural income and partnership profits, the tribunal held that a reasonable cash balance of Rs.30 lakhs could be accepted as genuine cash in hand, while the remainder was treated as undisclosed income.

Issue 2: Application of Section 115BBE

Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act imposes a higher tax rate on income referred to in Sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C, or 69D, disallowing deductions or set-offs in computing such income. The AO applied this section to tax the unexplained cash deposits at a special rate.

The assessee challenged the applicability of Section 115BBE, contending that the amendment increasing the tax rate from 30% to 60% was effective from 01.04.2017 and thus not applicable to transactions occurring before that date, specifically during the demonetization period (November-December 2016).

The tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, which interpreted the amendment in Section 115BBE in the context of the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Bill, 2016, introduced to curb black money post demonetization. The Court held that the enhanced tax rate of 60% applies only to transactions from 01.04.2017 onwards and not to prior transactions, which are subject to the earlier 30% rate.

The tribunal reproduced the legislative intent and objects of the amendment, emphasizing that the government's aim was to prevent future conversion of black money and not to retrospectively tax prior transactions at the higher rate. Following this authoritative precedent, the tribunal allowed the ground of appeal on this issue, holding that Section 115BBE's enhanced rate could not be applied to the cash deposits made during the demonetization period prior to 01.04.2017.

Issue 3: Levy of Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D

The levy of interest under these sections relates to delays in filing returns, payment of advance tax, and other related defaults. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's levy of interest under these provisions.

The assessee did not produce any substantial evidence or argument to disprove the applicability of interest. The tribunal, therefore, upheld the interest levy as confirmed by the CIT(A).

Issue 4: Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271AAC

Section 271AAC imposes penalty on failure to comply with provisions related to undisclosed income detected during search or other proceedings. The AO initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee, which were upheld by the CIT(A).

The assessee argued that the penalty was not justified due to lack of proper appreciation of facts and evidence. However, given the tribunal's finding that a substantial portion of cash deposits were unexplained and treated as undisclosed income, the penalty under Section 271AAC was considered appropriate and was confirmed.

Issue 5: Alleged Breach of Natural Justice and Improper Appreciation of Evidence

The assessee contended that the lower authorities failed to properly consider submissions, explanations, and evidence, violating principles of natural justice.

The tribunal examined the record and found that the AO and CIT(A) had duly considered the submissions and evidence presented. The rejection of evidence was based on the absence of credible and contemporaneous documentation and the inconsistencies in the cash flow statements. The tribunal found no procedural irregularity or breach of natural justice warranting interference.

Significant Holdings:

On the issue of unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A, the tribunal held that while a portion of the cash balance (Rs.30 lakhs) could be accepted as genuine, the remaining amount was rightly added to income as undisclosed income due to lack of credible evidence.

Regarding Section 115BBE, the tribunal, following the High Court's authoritative ruling, held: "the revenue is empowered to impose 60% rate of tax for the transactions from 01.04.2017 onwards and not prior to the said cut-off date. And for prior transaction the revenue is empowered to impose only 30% rate of tax." This established the principle that the enhanced tax rate is prospective and does not apply retrospectively to transactions before 01.04.2017.

The tribunal upheld the levy of interest under Sections 234A/B/C/D and the penalty under Section 271AAC, finding no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities.

The tribunal rejected the contention of breach of natural justice and improper appreciation of evidence, affirming that the authorities acted within legal bounds and on proper evaluation of facts.

In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed: the addition under Section 69A was modified to accept Rs.30 lakhs as genuine cash in hand, and the application of Section 115BBE's higher tax rate was disallowed for transactions prior to 01.04.2017. All other grounds, including interest and penalty, were dismissed.