9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 903 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credits - a ssessee has admitted that he has not maintained books of accounts - HELD THAT - From a plain reading of section 68 of the Act it is clear that the addition can be made U/s. 68 of the Act in cases where any sum is found credited in the books of account maintained by the assessee where the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credits in the books of account or such explanation is not in the opinion of the Assessing Officer being satisfactorily explained. In the instant case the addition has been made U/s. 68 of the Act even though it was acknowledged by the Ld. AO that the assessee has not maintained books of account. See KAMAL KUMAR MISHRA 2014 (1) TMI 71 - ITAT LUCKNOW and SMT. MADHU RAITANI VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-3 2010 (10) TMI 905 - ITAT GAUHATI It is a settled decision of law that the addition made by the Ld. AO in respect of the cash deposits by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act fails for the simple reason that the bank statements or bank pass books cannot be considered as books maintained by the assessee for any previous year and therefore the addition made by the Ld. AO U/s. 68 of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be deleted. Decided in favour of assessee.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issue considered by the Tribunal was whether the addition of Rs. 53,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") as unexplained cash credits was sustainable in the absence of books of account maintained by the assessee. Ancillary to this was the question of whether Section 68 could be invoked where no books of account exist and the sum credited is reflected only in bank statements or passbooks. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue: Validity of addition under Section 68 of the Act in absence of books of account Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 68 of the Act provides that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee for any previous year and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation is unsatisfactory in the opinion of the AO, the sum may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee. The section explicitly refers to sums found credited in the "books" of the assessee. Precedents cited by the Tribunal included decisions of coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, notably Smt. Madhu Raitani vs. ACIT (2011) and ITO, Barabank vs. Carnal Kumar Mishra (2013), which held that bank statements or passbooks do not constitute "books of account" maintained by the assessee for the purposes of Section 68. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the AO had acknowledged the assessee did not maintain any books of account and that no bills or vouchers were produced for expenses such as packing material and ice. The AO had relied on cash deposits reflected in bank accounts to make additions under Section 68. However, the Tribunal emphasized that Section 68 applies only where sums are found credited in the books of account maintained by the assessee. The Tribunal reasoned that bank statements or passbooks cannot be equated to books of account maintained by the assessee within the meaning of Section 68. Therefore, the invocation of Section 68 in the absence of such books was legally unsustainable. Key evidence and findings: The assessee had not filed a return of income initially and later filed it after notice under Section 148. The AO noticed large cash deposits and time deposits in the assessee's bank accounts but no corresponding books or vouchers. The assessee's explanation for the cash credits was inconsistent, initially attributing them to sale of land and later to commission income from prawn and fish business. The AO rejected these explanations and made the addition under Section 68. The assessee admitted non-maintenance of books of account. Application of law to facts: Given the admitted absence of books of account, the Tribunal held that the AO could not rely on Section 68, which requires sums to be credited in books maintained by the assessee. The bank statements alone cannot be treated as such books. Thus, the addition was not sustainable on the facts. Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee's representative argued that without books of account, Section 68 could not be invoked and relied on judicial precedents supporting this proposition. The Revenue defended the addition relying on the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders but did not successfully counter the legal principle that bank statements are not books of account for Section 68 purposes. The Tribunal sided with the assessee's submissions and precedents. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the addition of Rs. 53,50,000/- under Section 68 was bad in law and deserved to be deleted. The appeal was allowed accordingly. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal held: "It is a settled decision of law that the addition made by the Ld. AO in respect of the cash deposits by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act fails for the simple reason that the bank statements or bank pass books cannot be considered as books maintained by the assessee for any previous year and therefore, the addition made by the Ld. AO U/s. 68 of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be deleted." This establishes the core principle that for invoking Section 68, sums must be found credited in books of account maintained by the assessee, and mere bank statements or passbooks are insufficient to sustain additions under this section. On the facts, the Tribunal's final determination was to allow the appeal and delete the addition of Rs. 53,50,000/- made under Section 68 of the Act.
|
