2025 (4) TMI 649 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of cash deposit as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 taxable under section 115BBE - books of account were also rejected under section 145(3) and GP was estimated on a higher rate resulting in an additional addition - HELD THAT - Where the documents and evidence were already on record and considered by the AO the CIT(A) was not obligated to call for a remand report. Once the assessee provides a satisfactory explanation of the source of cash deposit supported by books and evidence the burden shifts to the AO to disprove the same which the AO has failed to do in this case. AO rejected the assessee s books of account under section 145(3) of the Act and estimated the Gross Profit at 0.36% based on the succeeding year as against 0.13% declared by the assessee. CIT(A) held that the books were audited and regularly maintained there was no finding of suppression of sales or inflation of purchases no discrepancy in stock cash book or purchase register was pointed out and a mere fall in GP ratio without defects in the books does not justify rejection of books or estimation of profit. AO while suspecting the genuineness of cash deposits failed to make any enquiries from the buyers named in the sales bills did not call for cross-verification from Anmol Traders or examine the consistency of books with VAT returns. The principles of natural justice and burden of proof require the AO to conduct such verification before drawing adverse inference. Where no contradiction in books is found and cash sales are substantiated by quantity records and statutory filings the addition under section 68 cannot be sustained. Burden of proof u/s 68 was satisfactorily discharged by the assessee. The cash book purchase register stock details and VAT returns were produced and formed part of the assessment record. AO did not make any independent enquiry did not call for cross-verification of sales and did not find any contradiction in the stock position or method of accounting. CIT(A) rightly relied on existing records and did not admit or rely upon any fresh evidence. The allegation regarding URD purchases was adequately addressed with purchase register and bank statement showing payment through banking channels in July 2016 much before demonetization period. The additions made by the AO were based on presumption and suspicion and not supported by evidence. The judicial precedents collectively support the proposition that where the assessee has explained the source of cash deposits with reference to books of account and supporting documentation and no defect or adverse finding is recorded by the AO no addition under section 68 can be sustained - Decided against revenue.

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,32,00,000/- made under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating the facts of the case.

2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,51,379/- on account of the difference in Gross Profit (GP) estimated by the Assessing Officer (AO) and that declared by the assessee.

3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in not rejecting the books of account under section 145 of the Act, despite the abnormalities pointed out by the AO.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Addition under Section 68

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 68 of the Income Tax Act deals with unexplained cash credits, where the burden of proof lies on the assessee to explain the nature and source of cash deposits. Section 115BBE prescribes the tax rate applicable to such unexplained income.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had appropriately examined the records, which included the cash book, ledger accounts, VAT returns, purchase register, and stock statements. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the source of cash deposits through cash withdrawals from the bank and cash sales of gold ornaments.

Key evidence and findings: The assessee provided evidence of cash withdrawals from Ratnakar Bank and cash sales backed by stock movement and purchase history. The AR demonstrated that URD purchases were made through banking channels, not cash.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the AO did not provide evidence to disprove the assessee's explanation. The AO's failure to point out defects in the books or contradictions in the documentary record meant the burden of proof under section 68 was not satisfied.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) failed to verify the evidence and that new evidence was considered without a remand report. However, the Tribunal found that all evidence was already part of the record, and no new evidence was introduced.

Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition under section 68, as the assessee had provided a satisfactory explanation supported by documentary evidence.

2. Addition on Account of Gross Profit Difference

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 145(3) allows the AO to reject books of account if they are not maintained in accordance with prescribed accounting standards or if defects are found.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The CIT(A) found that the books were audited and regularly maintained, with no evidence of suppressed sales or inflated purchases. The mere fall in GP ratio was not sufficient to reject the books.

Key evidence and findings: The assessee's books showed no discrepancies in stock, cash book, or purchase register. The AO did not conduct cross-verification of sales or examine VAT returns consistency.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal agreed that the AO's rejection of books was arbitrary, as no specific defects were identified, and the GP estimation was not justified.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue's contention that the CIT(A) failed to verify the books was dismissed, as the CIT(A) relied on existing records without admitting new evidence.

Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the GP difference addition, finding no legal or factual basis for the AO's estimation.

3. Rejection of Books under Section 145

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 145(3) permits the AO to reject books if they are not maintained as per the prescribed standards or if there are significant discrepancies.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The CIT(A) found the books to be properly maintained and audited, with no specific defects identified by the AO. The rejection was deemed unjustified.

Key evidence and findings: The assessee's books were consistent with VAT returns and stock records, and no adverse findings were recorded by the AO.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal found that the AO's rejection of books was based on suspicion rather than evidence, and the CIT(A) rightly relied on the existing records.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's arguments, noting that the AO did not conduct necessary verifications or enquiries.

Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision not to reject the books, as the AO's actions were not supported by evidence of defects or discrepancies.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The burden of proof under section 68 was satisfactorily discharged by the assessee... The AO did not make any independent enquiry, did not call for cross-verification of sales, and did not find any contradiction in the stock position or method of accounting."

Core principles established: The explanation of cash deposits supported by books and evidence shifts the burden to the AO to disprove the same. Mere suspicion or presumption without evidence does not justify additions under section 68 or rejection of books under section 145.

Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions under section 68 and on account of GP difference, and not to reject the books under section 145.

← Previous Next →