2021 (10) TMI 67 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash deposit in the Bank A/c - Estimation of income under the presumptive taxation u/s 44AF - HELD THAT - A perusal of the letter addressed to the A.O. shows that assessee has categorically mentioned that he is engaged in the retail trading of tailoring materials since long and his total income had never become taxable, for which, he never filed his return of income. The assessee had also explained before the A.O. that he is having only one S.B. A/c maintained with ICICI Bank Limited and has no Current A/c for maintaining business transactions and all his sales and purchases have been routed through his S.B. A/c only. There is no material on record before the A.O. that apart from the aforementioned Bank A/c, the assessee is having any other Bank A/c. therefore, find merit in the arguments advanced by Assessee that when all business transactions i.e., purchases and sales etc., are routed through the only Bank A/c maintained with ICICI Bank Limited and since in the subsequent assessment year the A.O. himself has accepted that the S.B. A/c of the assessee is used for his business transactions and since the assessee has opted for presumptive taxation under section 44AF lower authorities are not justified in sustaining the addition as unexplained cash deposit in the Bank - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Validity of reassessment proceedings, Addition of unexplained cash deposit, Application of presumptive taxation under section 44AF.

Validity of Reassessment Proceedings:
The case involved the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 due to a cash deposit made by the assessee in a bank account. The assessee challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings, arguing that proper procedures were not followed, such as the lack of recorded reasons and approval from the PCIT. Both the AO and the CIT(A) were not convinced by the assessee's arguments, leading to a dispute over the validity of the reassessment proceedings.

Addition of Unexplained Cash Deposit:
The AO made an addition to the total income of the assessee based on the unexplained cash deposits in the bank account. The assessee contended that all deposits were business receipts and should not be treated as undisclosed income. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and found merit in the assessee's arguments. It noted that all business transactions were routed through the single bank account maintained by the assessee, who had opted for presumptive taxation under section 44AF. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition of the unexplained cash deposit.

Application of Presumptive Taxation under Section 44AF:
The assessee had opted for presumptive taxation under section 44AF of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This provision allows for the estimation of income at a certain percentage of gross receipts. The assessee argued that the addition made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was not justified given the nature of his business and tax treatment under section 44AF. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's position and directed the AO to delete the addition based on the presumptive taxation scheme.

In summary, the judgment addressed the issues of the validity of reassessment proceedings, the addition of unexplained cash deposits, and the application of presumptive taxation under section 44AF. The Tribunal found in favor of the assessee, directing the AO to delete the addition of the unexplained cash deposit due to the nature of the assessee's business transactions and the application of presumptive taxation.