2022 (5) TMI 333 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash deposit in bank account of assessee - Application of theory of opening and closing cash balance - HELD THAT - Assessee has specifically demonstrated by way of submitting relevant sale deeds that he has received cash amount of Rs.24,45,000/- as sale consideration from various land purchasers and executed 8 registered sale deeds during the financial year 2012-13 and the Assessing Officer has not considered this amount towards cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee. Therefore, in our humble understanding, this amount received in cash against sale consideration of land to 8 persons, has to be taken into consideration and the explanation of the assessee in this regard is plausible and sustainable one. We direct the Assessing Officer to recalculate the disallowance u/s. 68 of the Act by giving credit of Rs.24.45 lacs received by the assessee against sale of land to 8 persons during the immediately previous financial period which also gets support from the amount of opening cash balance in the hands of the assessee which was Rs.30,62,450/- . Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed sustaining the remaining addition of Rs.9,70,725/- (34,15,725 24,45,000). Appeal of assessee allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of alleged unexplained cash deposit in bank account.
2. Direction to reopen the case for a subsequent assessment year.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the addition of Rs.34,15,725 as unexplained cash deposit in the bank account. The Appellant argued that the cash deposits were from land sales, supported by the cash flow statement. The Appellant highlighted the closing cash balance from the previous financial period, showing the source of the cash deposit. The Appellant requested deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A).

2. The Appellant contended that there was no intention to evade tax, and the CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to reopen the case for a subsequent assessment year. The Appellant emphasized that the Assessing Officer for the subsequent year did not make any additions related to cash deposits and accepted the cash flow statement. The Appellant urged for the deletion of the entire addition.

3. The Senior DR supported the Assessing Officer's action, citing the addition under section 68 of the Act based on cash deposits in the bank account. The Senior DR noted the Assessing Officer's approach of calculating the peak amount of deposit by considering cash withdrawals.

4. The Tribunal observed that while the Appellant did not dispute the cash deposits, there was no mention of the Assessing Officer granting credit for the opening cash balance. The Tribunal noted the cash flow statement showing opening and closing cash balances, inflow, and outflow. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering the sale consideration received in cash against land sales, which the Assessing Officer had not accounted for.

5. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recalculate the disallowance under section 68 by including the Rs.24.45 lakhs received from land sales against the remaining addition. The Tribunal found the Appellant's explanation regarding the sale consideration plausible and sustainable, considering the opening cash balance. The appeal was partly allowed, sustaining a reduced addition of Rs.9,70,725.

6. In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of considering the sale proceeds from land sales and the opening cash balance in determining the cash deposits in the bank account. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recalculate the addition, reducing it based on the sale consideration received by the Appellant.