2018 (8) TMI 1065 - HC - Income Tax

Additions u/s 68 - cash deposits made on different dates in the joint bank account - unexplained cash or not - Nexus with amount withdrawn earlier in different dates - Rejecting the arguments to the assessee, tribunal confirmed the additions - Held that - The assessee has not filed any explanation about the discrepancy in the cash flow statement. It is not explained when huge cash amount have been withdrawn, why only part amount have been used for construction and if sufficient cash was available to assessee on prior dates, why there is again huge cash withdrawal on subsequent dates without incurring any expenditure on construction. The appellant-assessee had conveniently claimed that entire construction was without any bank transaction or bill, vouchers, etc. This is not plausible. Facts on record are glaring and one-sided. It is obvious that the bills of purchases, payments made to contractor etc. and the accounts relating to construction were held back, as they would have revealed the truth and would not have supported the already weak and tenuous explanation of the appellant-assessee. The reasoning given by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is not perverse. It is based and founded on the evidence and material on record. - Additions confirmed - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of ?27,33,333/- on account of unexplained cash deposits.
2. Validity of the explanation provided by the appellant regarding the source of cash deposits.
3. Application of Section 69/69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of ?27,33,333/- on account of unexplained cash deposits:
The High Court reviewed the appeal against the order dated 16.10.2017 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which upheld the addition of ?27,33,333/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. This addition was due to unexplained cash deposits totaling ?82,00,000/- made on different dates in the joint bank account of the appellant-assessee and two others. The fact that ?82,00,000/- was deposited in cash is undisputed.

2. Validity of the explanation provided by the appellant regarding the source of cash deposits:
The appellant contended that ?1,52,00,000/- was withdrawn in cash from the joint bank account on different dates between 3.5.2010 and 4.1.2011, and ?82,00,000/- was re-deposited on different dates between 24.5.2010 and 31.1.2011. The appellant argued that the withdrawals were for construction purposes and surplus money was re-deposited when not required. The ITAT rejected this explanation, noting that the appellant failed to provide evidence of payments made to contractors, details of construction costs, or any supporting bills or vouchers. The cash flow statement provided by the appellant was deemed unreliable and full of discrepancies, as it did not convincingly explain the nexus between withdrawals and re-deposits.

3. Application of Section 69/69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The ITAT applied Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, which pertains to unexplained money, to sustain the addition. The Tribunal noted that the appellant could not prove that the cash withdrawn was used for construction and subsequently re-deposited. The Tribunal cited the case of Jauhari Mal Goel, where the Allahabad High Court held that deposits in a bank account could be treated as investments under Section 69. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's contention that no addition could be made for the cash deposited in the bank account. The appellant's failure to provide detailed project reports, bank loan utilization details, or any construction-related expenses supported the Tribunal's decision to uphold the addition.

The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's findings, stating that the explanation provided by the appellant was not plausible and that the appellant had failed to produce any corroborative evidence. The Court found the Tribunal's reasoning to be based on the evidence and material on record and not perverse. The decisions cited by the appellant were deemed irrelevant as they pertained to different factual matrices.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law and upheld the addition of ?27,33,333/- due to unexplained cash deposits. The Court emphasized the appellant's failure to provide credible evidence to support their explanation for the cash deposits.