9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 80 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s.69A - unexplained money - taxability u/s 115BBE - HELD THAT - It can be seen that the assessee has given the details related to selling of gold after demise of his wife was not in toto declined by the Assessing Officer. In fact the assessee has given the detail of the relatives and neighbours whom the assessee sold the gold jewellery. The reason given by the assessee about keeping the cash for medical reason was also explained. Thus the addition made by the Assessing Officer was very well explained by the assessee and the same was totally ignored by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). Thus appeal of the assessee is allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issues considered in this judgment are: 1. Whether the addition of Rs.22,39,500/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act as unexplained money was justified. 2. Whether the invocation of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, which prescribes a tax rate of 60% for unexplained income, was applicable in this case. 3. Whether the charging of interest under Sections 234A/B/C/D of the Income Tax Act was appropriate. 4. Whether the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC of the Income Tax Act was sustainable. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Addition under Section 69A Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 69A of the Income Tax Act deals with unexplained money, where any money, bullion, jewellery, or other valuable article is found in the possession of the taxpayer and the taxpayer fails to provide a satisfactory explanation about its nature and source, the value of such items may be deemed as income of the taxpayer. The taxpayer cited precedents such as Rohini Builders v. DCIT and CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd., which emphasize that once the taxpayer provides adequate evidence regarding the identity and genuineness of transactions, the onus shifts to the department to disprove the taxpayer's claims. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the taxpayer, an 81-year-old senior citizen, provided a reasonable explanation for the cash deposits, attributing them to the sale of gold jewellery belonging to his deceased wife. The taxpayer furnished purchaser-wise details, including Aadhaar and PAN information, and maintained cash reserves for medical and personal emergencies. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not entirely dismiss the taxpayer's explanation regarding the sale of gold but failed to consider the evidence provided adequately. Key Evidence and Findings: The taxpayer submitted purchaser details, transaction amounts, Aadhaar cards, PAN details, confirmation letters, and bank statements to substantiate the cash deposits. Despite the non-response from purchasers to notices under Section 133(6), the taxpayer discharged the initial burden of proof. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that the taxpayer's explanation was credible and adequately supported by documentation. The non-response from purchasers could not solely justify the addition under Section 69A, as the taxpayer had discharged their burden of proof. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal acknowledged the Revenue's argument regarding the lack of confirmation from purchasers but emphasized that the taxpayer provided sufficient evidence to shift the onus back to the Assessing Officer. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the addition of Rs.22,39,500/- under Section 69A was not justified and allowed the taxpayer's appeal on this ground. Issue 2: Invocation of Section 115BBE Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 115BBE prescribes a higher tax rate of 60% for income deemed unexplained under Sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C, or 69D. The amendment to this section was introduced effective from 01.04.2017. The taxpayer referenced the case of S.M.I.L.E Microfinance Limited, which held that the amended rate could not be applied retrospectively to transactions before the amendment's effective date. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal did not need to address this issue in detail, as the main ground of appeal was allowed, rendering the alternate ground moot. Issue 3: Charging of Interest under Sections 234A/B/C/D The Tribunal did not explicitly address this issue, as the primary ground of appeal was resolved in favor of the taxpayer. Issue 4: Penalty Proceedings under Section 271AAC The Tribunal did not delve into this issue, as the primary ground of appeal was allowed, negating the basis for penalty proceedings. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal emphasized the principle that once a taxpayer provides adequate evidence regarding the identity and genuineness of transactions, the onus shifts to the department to challenge the evidence. The Tribunal found that the taxpayer had sufficiently explained and substantiated the cash deposits, and the addition under Section 69A was unwarranted. The Tribunal allowed the taxpayer's appeal, thereby deleting the addition of Rs.22,39,500/- and rendering other grounds moot.
|
