2025 (3) TMI 762 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69A - cash deposits in the assessee s bank accounts constituted unexplained income - HELD THAT - As rightly pointed out by the CIT(A) in the impugned order that there is no benefit given to the withdrawals and no verification has been done in that regard whether the said withdrawals were utilized for personal benefit of the assessee. AO failed to conduct an examination in this regard to arrive at correct income of the assessee. AO however proceeded to add entire cash deposit as income of the assessee without there being any benefit to the withdrawals in our opinion is not justified. We find the assessee filed original return of income declaring a total income of . 7, 72, 241/- and in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act declared income of . 31, 51, 430/-. The break-up of the said income is reflected in impugned order. On examination of the same the assessee stated to have been earned income from salary income from other sources and income from business. CIT(A) was of the opinion that there was no evidence brought on record by the Assessing Officer to bring entire cash deposits as income of the assessee chargeable to tax. In view of the same we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and it is justified. Thus the grounds raised by the Appellant-Revenue are dismissed.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issue considered in this judgment is whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] was justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Specifically, the question was whether the cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts constituted unexplained income liable to be taxed under section 69A.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents

Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, deals with unexplained money, etc., found in the possession of the assessee. If the assessee is unable to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of such money, it may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for that financial year. The precedent cited by the assessee was the Supreme Court decision in the case of Smt. P.K. Noorjahan, where it was held that even if the explanation about the nature and sources of the purchase money was not satisfactory, the income could not be deemed if it was not possible for the assessee to earn such an amount.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had considered the fact that the Assessing Officer had not provided evidence that the entire bank deposits were the income of the assessee. The CIT(A) reasoned that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the withdrawals from the bank accounts and whether these withdrawals were used for personal expenses or investments. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that without evidence of personal use, the deposits alone could not be deemed income.

Key Evidence and Findings

The evidence considered included the bank statements showing both deposits and withdrawals. The CIT(A) found that the Assessing Officer had only considered the deposits without analyzing the withdrawals, which could indicate the funds were used in the business operations rather than being unexplained income.

Application of Law to Facts

The Tribunal applied the principles from the P.K. Noorjahan case, emphasizing that the mere presence of deposits without evidence of ownership or use for personal gain could not justify taxation under section 69A. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had declared income from salary, other sources, and business, which the Assessing Officer accepted in computing the total income.

Treatment of Competing Arguments

The Revenue argued that the assessee failed to produce evidence of the clients or the nature of the contract work, justifying the addition under section 69A. However, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s reasoning compelling, as the Assessing Officer did not consider withdrawals or provide evidence of the deposits being unexplained income.

Conclusions

The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The lack of evidence to treat the entire cash deposits as unexplained income meant the addition was not justified.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning

The Tribunal noted: "There exists no evidence to treat the entire cash deposit made by the Appellant as his income. When the withdrawals are considered the closing balance is nearly minimum. Obviously, this established the fact that the Appellant is performing some kind of work relating to his business."

Core Principles Established

The Tribunal reinforced the principle that unexplained deposits cannot be deemed income under section 69A without evidence of ownership or personal use. The decision emphasized the need for a fair assessment considering both deposits and withdrawals.

Final Determinations on Each Issue

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of 2,92,16,317/- as unexplained income under section 69A of the Act for the assessment year 2011-12.