2025 (4) TMI 1470 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash - CIT(A) deleted addition instead making estimation of net profit of 4% of turnover - as per revenue assessee failed to discharge the onus to prove the identity creditworthiness and genuineness of the parties to whom cash sales were made during the year - HELD THAT - Since the assessee failed to prove the identity creditworthiness and genuineness of the impugned bank deposits the AO was justified in invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act. Quantification of the addition - GP estimation - CIT(A) held that once the book results have been rejected by the AO only the profit element there in could be added. Accordingly he applied a flat rate of 4% of the total turnover - As decided in M/s ISMT Limited 2021 (12) TMI 549 - ITAT PUNE wherein it was observed that once the books of accounts of an assessee are rejected by the A.O under Sec. 145(3) of the Act then he cannot rely upon on the same books of account for the purpose of making any addition and the only course of action available with him is to determine the income by application of a flat rate of profit by taking into consideration the business conditions of the assessee as in comparison to profits disclosed by other assessee s in the similar line of business. CIT(A) has taken a very pragmatic view of the entire matter. His conclusion as stated above is based on correct appreciation of facts of the case which are in consonance with judicial findings as well. We therefore hold that he has correctly appreciated the facts and his conclusion and application of the net profit on the total turnover being the addition does not need any interference.

Summary

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal pertain primarily to the application of section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in relation to unexplained cash credits and the consequent treatment of such credits for assessment of income. Specifically, the issues include:

1. Whether the deletion of the addition made under section 68 of the Act for unexplained cash deposits amounting to Rs. 5,98,78,500/- by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) was justified, particularly when the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the parties to whom cash sales were allegedly made.

2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in substituting the addition under section 68 with an estimation of net profit at 4% of turnover without appreciating the evidence indicating that the cash sales claim was non-genuine and false, especially in light of the director's statement.

3. Whether the CIT(A) disregarded the Assessing Officer's (AO) findings regarding structured transactions and the corroboration of these findings with the statements of the directors when granting relief.

4. Whether the CIT(A) erred in not applying the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act, which deals with taxation of income referred to in section 68 and related provisions, following the addition under section 68.

5. The quantification of the addition, specifically whether the estimation of net profit at 4% of turnover was appropriate or whether the gross profit ratio or only the disputed cash sales amount should have been considered.

6. The validity of rejection of the books of account under section 145(3) of the Act and the consequent implications on the assessment process.

Each of these issues is interrelated and revolves around the assessment of unexplained cash deposits post demonetization and the evidentiary burden on the assessee to prove the source and genuineness of such deposits.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application of Section 68 of the Income-tax Act to Unexplained Cash Deposits

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 68 mandates that when any sum is credited in the books of an assessee and the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of such sum, the amount can be treated as the assessee's income. The onus lies on the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The Supreme Court in several rulings has underscored this principle, including the cases of CIT v. P. Mohanakala and Vijay Kumar Talwar v. CIT. The test of human probability and surrounding circumstances is also relevant as per the ruling in Sumati Dayal vs CIT.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO found that the assessee had deposited a large sum of cash post demonetization, claimed to be proceeds from cash sales executed between 28.10.2016 and 08.11.2016. However, the assessee's business model was primarily B2B (Business to Business), and such cash sales to retail customers (B2C) were unprecedented and not repeated before or after this period. The director's statement was evasive and failed to substantiate the claim of cash sales, including lack of logistical capacity for such sales and delivery. The AO concluded that the cash deposits were unexplained income, rejecting the assessee's explanation.

The CIT(A) concurred with the AO's finding that the assessee failed to discharge the onus under section 68, as the identity and creditworthiness of the buyers were not satisfactorily established. The assessee did not produce names, addresses, or PAN details of buyers, which is critical even if PAN is not mandatory for sales below Rs. 2 lakhs. The CIT(A) emphasized that mere confirmation of purchases by sellers does not establish genuineness, especially where collusion is possible.

Key Evidence and Findings: The director's statement, absence of buyer details, lack of continuity in the business model, and absence of delivery expenses or manpower for door-to-door delivery were pivotal. The AO's detailed show-cause notice rebutted the assessee's explanations pointwise, highlighting inconsistencies and improbabilities in the cash sales claim.

Application of Law to Facts: Given the failure to prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness, the cash deposits were rightly treated as unexplained cash credits under section 68. The Tribunal upheld this concurrent finding of the AO and CIT(A), noting that the assessee did not appeal against this aspect.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee argued that the cash deposits represented genuine cash sales supported by books of accounts, audited reports, and confirmations from purchase parties. It also contended that sales were part of exhibitions and that proper accounting standards were followed. The Tribunal found these arguments insufficient, given the lack of buyer details, the unusual business model deviation, and the director's unsatisfactory explanations.

Conclusions: The invocation of section 68 was justified. The assessee failed to discharge the onus to explain the source of cash deposits, and the amounts were rightly added to income as unexplained cash credits.

2. Rejection of Books of Account under Section 145(3) and Consequences

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 145(3) empowers the AO to reject books of account if they do not represent the true state of affairs. Judicial precedents, including Bastiram Narayandas v. CIT and Abdul Khadar (P.) v. CIT, support the view that unexplained cash credits may justify rejection of books. Once books are rejected, the AO cannot rely on them for assessment and must estimate income.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO rejected the books of account, finding manipulation to inflate cash sales and suppress cash expenses, to cover up unexplained cash. The CIT(A) upheld this rejection, relying on judicial decisions that once books are rejected, the AO cannot rely on them for additions and must estimate profits based on business conditions and comparable entities.

Key Evidence and Findings: The AO's detailed findings on discrepancies, non-genuine cash sales, and the director's evasive statements supported rejection. The CIT(A) cited authoritative rulings to justify estimation of income rather than reliance on rejected books.

Application of Law to Facts: The rejection of books was warranted due to the failure to prove genuineness of cash sales and inconsistencies in accounts. Consequently, the AO could not add the entire cash deposit as income but was constrained to estimate profit.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee contended that books were audited and maintained as per prescribed standards, with no adverse remarks. However, the Tribunal found that the presence of unexplained cash and failure to substantiate cash sales justified rejection.

Conclusions: The rejection of books under section 145(3) was valid, and the AO's approach to estimate income rather than rely on books was legally sound.

3. Quantification of Addition and Estimation of Profit

Legal Framework and Precedents: When books are rejected, the AO must estimate income based on reasonable methods, such as applying a flat rate of profit to turnover, considering business conditions and comparable entities. Judicial precedents cited include Amitabh Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT and ISMT Limited v. ACIT.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The CIT(A) held that since the AO rejected the books, he could not rely on the profit figures therein. Therefore, a net profit rate of 4% on total turnover was applied to estimate income, resulting in an addition of Rs. 87,31,059. The Tribunal upheld this approach, finding it pragmatic and consistent with judicial guidance.

Key Evidence and Findings: The past profit ratios of the assessee showed net profit ratios around 2%, but the CIT(A) applied 4% net profit considering the circumstances. The assessee's argument to apply gross profit ratio or to restrict estimation only to disputed cash sales was rejected as the entire books were rejected and the cash sales were not genuine.

Application of Law to Facts: The application of a flat net profit rate on total turnover was appropriate given the rejection of books and the inability to segregate genuine and non-genuine sales. The Tribunal found no infirmity in this quantification.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee argued against double taxation and urged consideration of gross profit ratio and only the disputed cash sales amount. The Tribunal found these arguments untenable in light of the rejected books and the need for a practical estimation method.

Conclusions: The estimation of net profit at 4% of turnover for addition to income was justified and upheld.

4. Applicability of Section 115BBE

Legal Framework: Section 115BBE applies to income referred to in section 68 and related provisions, either reflected in the return or determined by the AO.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: Since the addition under section 68 was deleted and replaced by an estimation of profit due to rejection of books, the provisions of section 115BBE were held not applicable. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal on this ground.

Conclusions: Section 115BBE was not applicable once the addition under section 68 was set aside in favor of profit estimation.

5. Treatment of Evidence and Competing Arguments on Business Model and Cash Sales

Legal Framework: The onus to prove genuineness and source of cash credits lies with the assessee. The test of human probability and consistency with business practice is relevant.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO and CIT(A) found the assessee's claim of sudden cash sales to retail customers for a short period unprecedented and inconsistent with the B2B business model. The director's statement was evasive, and no credible explanation was provided for discontinuation of such sales. The lack of buyer details and logistical support further undermined the claim.

Key Evidence: Director's statement, absence of buyer details, lack of delivery expenses, absence of manpower, and no repetition of such sales before or after demonetization.

Application of Law to Facts: The improbability and inconsistency with normal business practice led to rejection of the cash sales claim and treatment of deposits as unexplained income.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee's submissions about exhibitions, audited accounts, confirmations from purchase parties, and accounting practices were found insufficient to rebut the AO's findings.

Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the findings that cash sales claim was non-genuine and that the cash deposits represented undisclosed income.

Significant Holdings:

"The assessee has failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the parties to whom cash sales were made during the year."

"Once the AO rejected the books of accounts of the assessee under section 145 of the Act, he could not have relied on the rejected books of accounts for making addition under section 68 of the Act but was left with the only option to estimate the profit."

"The cash deposits made by the assessee company is nothing but the undisclosed income of the assessee."

"The claim of the assessee regarding cash sales just before demonetization is false, non-genuine and lacks any credibility."

"The provisions of section 115BBE of the Act are not applicable once the addition under section 68 is found not sustainable and replaced by profit estimation."

"Where the books of accounts are rejected, the AO cannot rely on the same books of accounts for the purpose of making any addition, and the only course of action available is to determine the income by application of a flat rate of profit by taking into consideration the business conditions of the assessee."

"The assessee did not satisfactorily discharge the onus cast upon it to furnish name and address of the persons; therefore, the observation of the AO in light of provisions of section 68 that the assessee has not satisfactorily explained cash receipts is warranted and has merits."

"The estimation of net profit at 4% of turnover by the CIT(A) is a pragmatic view and does not call for interference."

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal by upholding the addition under section 68 but restricted the addition to the estimated profit at 4% of turnover due to rejection of books of account. The assessee's appeal against the estimation of profit was dismissed. The Tribunal confirmed the rejection of the assessee's explanation regarding cash sales and upheld the approach of estimating income consistent with judicial precedents and statutory provisions.