2024 (11) TMI 558 - AT - Income Tax

Additions u/s 68 - deposit of funds remained unexplained - economic rationale behind such transaction is to provide accommodation entries for bringing back the unaccounted money/fund of the clients to their regular books of accounts - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT - We find that the appeal was filed by the Revenue does not fall under any exceptional clause as argued by Learned Departmental Representative, the case primarily involves on the addition made during the demonetization period and the CIT(A) has rightly observed that the assessee had sufficient cash balance during the relevant financial year as evidences by the cash book. We further note that the AO made the addition based on assumption and conjecture without concrete evidence to support the claim cash deposit were unexplained. The Learned CIT(A) properly examine the facts and found that the assessee had sufficient cash balance to explain the deposits. CIT(A) decision to delete the addition under Section 68 of the Act is well founded. Moreover, the tax effect in the present case is below threshold specified by the CBDT s Circular and the case does not fall under any exceptional category. The Revenue appeal is thus not maintainable on this ground as well. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against deletion of additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2017-18 due to unexplained cash deposits during demonetization period.

Analysis:
The Revenue filed an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2017-18. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions without examining the merits of the case, particularly regarding unexplained cash deposits. The Revenue also argued that the case involved accommodation entries falling under a specific clause of CBDT's Circular, making it eligible for appeal despite the tax effect being below the specified limit.

The appeal faced a challenge due to a delay of 79 days in filing, which was condoned after sufficient cause was shown. The case involved the assessment of the assessee's return for AY 2017-18, focusing on unexplained cash deposits during demonetization. The Assessing Officer made additions to the income based on these deposits, which the CIT(A) later deleted, citing the assessee's consistent cash balance and lack of concrete evidence supporting the unexplained nature of the deposits.

The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) wrongly deleted the additions, emphasizing the lack of proper explanation from the assessee regarding the cash deposits. However, the Authorized Representative for the assessee contended that the additions were made beyond the limited scrutiny's scope and that the deposits were adequately explained with documentation. The Authorized Representative further argued that the CIT(A) rightly considered all evidence before deleting the additions.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the Revenue's appeal did not qualify under any exceptional clause as claimed, and the case primarily revolved around the demonetization period deposits. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the sufficient cash balance evidenced by the cash book and the lack of concrete evidence supporting the unexplained nature of the deposits. Additionally, the Tribunal observed that the tax effect was below the specified threshold, rendering the Revenue's appeal not maintainable. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made under Section 68 of the Act for AY 2017-18.