2022 (3) TMI 1025 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Addition treating the deposits in bank account as unexplained income - HELD THAT - When we look into the cash flow statement, we observe that the assessee has made a single cash withdrawal on 21.12.2011, which shows that the assessee is making high cash withdrawals too, though there are small withdrawals of course as stated by CIT(A) - to say that the assessee is making only small withdrawals, is baseless. We also note from the cash flow statement that the assessee has shown a closing cash balance which supports the fact that the assessee is keeping high cash balance as well. Another observation made by Ld. CIT(A) and emphasized by Ld. DR too that the assessee is declaring only ₹ 10,000/- per month and the household expenses cannot be as low as ₹ 300/- per day, is also a self-drawn inference for the sake of argument and does not have much substance unless the lower authorities would have found substantial household expenditure of the assessee on the basis of some material. With these facts on record, we observe that the assessee has submitted cash flow statement wherein the sources of deposits in bank account are well explained and this statement is not conclusively and adequately rebutted by the lower authorities. Hence we are inclined to hold that the assessee has explained the source of deposits and the same deserves to be accepted. Therefore, we allow this Ground of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the reassessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147.
2. Addition of ?11,19,200/- as unexplained income under Section 68.
3. Denial of benefit of peak credit.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Reassessment Order:
The assessee challenged the reassessment order on the grounds that it was based on "borrowed satisfaction" and not on the Assessing Officer's (AO) independent application of mind. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] addressed this by noting that the AO had properly analyzed the information regarding cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The CIT(A) emphasized that the assessee had not requested the reasons for reopening nor objected to it, and thus, the AO was justified in reopening the assessment under Explanation 2(a) and 2(ca) to Section 147. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in the reasoning provided.

2. Addition of ?11,19,200/- as Unexplained Income:
The primary issue was whether the deposits totaling ?11,19,200/- in the assessee's bank account were unexplained income. The AO added this amount to the assessee's income, citing a lack of satisfactory explanation for the deposits. The CIT(A) sustained this addition, arguing that the assessee's explanation, including a cash flow statement, was not credible. The CIT(A) found the claimed opening cash balance and household expenses to be unrealistic and an afterthought.

However, the Tribunal took a different view. It noted that the assessee, a retired army officer and sub-inspector, had no other income sources and was not required to maintain books of account. The Tribunal found that the cash flow statement provided by the assessee, which included an opening balance, withdrawals, and deposits, was not adequately rebutted by the lower authorities. The Tribunal observed that the AO and CIT(A) had drawn conclusions based on conjectures and surmises rather than concrete evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal accepted the cash flow statement and deleted the addition of ?11,19,200/-.

3. Denial of Benefit of Peak Credit:
The assessee argued that if any addition was to be made, the benefit of peak credit should be given. However, since the Tribunal had already decided in favor of the assessee by deleting the entire addition, this ground became moot and was dismissed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, primarily by deleting the addition of ?11,19,200/- as unexplained income, thereby addressing the main grievance of the assessee. The order was pronounced on 09/03/2022 at Ahmedabad.