2022 (7) TMI 793 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69A - Unexplained cash deposits - money received on sale of land - AO treated the cash credits as unexplained money in terms of provisions of section 69A and accordingly proposed to assessee the same U/s. 115BBE - HELD THAT - Admitted facts are that the assessee being a Non-Resident Indian sold along with his daughter agricultural lands during the AY 2017-18 for a recorded consideration of Rs. 92,47,500/-. The contention of the Ld. AR that it was only 50% of the sale consideration and the remaining 50% of the sale consideration was received by way of cash could not be properly substantiated by the Ld. AR. Even though the buyer has disclosed lower sale consideration for the purpose of saving stamp duty, it could not be believed that the sale consideration flows from April 2016 onwards whereas the registration of the sale deed was executed on 20/09/2016 for the agricultural land held by the assessee and on February 2017 for the agricultural land held by the assessee s daughter Smt Sudevera Sindura. The reliance placed by the Ld. AR in the case of Intezar Ali ( 2013 (8) TMI 704 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT is distinguishable because the witnesses to the sale deed have deposed before the AO and Bank Manager of the assessee has confirmed that the cash was received by him against the sale made by the assessee. Since the Ld. AR could not provide any cogent evidences with respect to receipt of on money the same cannot be accepted. The argument of the Ld. DR that the purchaser has denied any payment of cash confirms that no on money was paid for the sale of agricultural land. In view of the above discussions, we find that the Ld. AO has rightly disallowed the same and we uphold the order of the Ld.AO on this ground. With reference to the cash deposits during the demonetization period - It is observed from the order of the Ld.AO that the AO has admitted that the cash has been withdrawn by the assessee from his own bank account and deposited the same into the same bank accounts. In such situation it can be said that the fact of withdrawals of cash was not disputed by the Revenue. Only what has to be considered is the purpose of withdrawal. The assessee from the assessment until its appeal before us has been consistently claiming that the amount was withdrawn for purchasing of some land and consequent to announcement of demonetization the amount was again redeposited in the bank account by the assessee. But no documentary evidences were produced by the assessee to substantiate the same. AO as well as the Ld. DR speak about the human probabilities of holding such huge cash. We also observe from the assessment order that the Ld. AO has observed that the accumulated cash must have been used for some other specified purpose and would have exhausted. The reliance placed by the ld. AR and the Ld. DR on the decision of Shashi Garg ( 2019 (7) TMI 410 - SC ORDER is distinguishable on the fact that assessee had habitually withdrawn and deposited and it is not during demonetization period and hence the ratio of the Hon ble Supreme Court cannot be applied in the instant case. Further, the assessee being an NRI, these cash withdrawals and deposits were made by the relatives of the assessee. The Ld. AR has also not clearly demonstrated with evidences that the withdrawals by assessee is for buying of agricultural lands. The Ld. AR also failed to furnish any explanation of withdrawals of Rs. 25 lakhs on 20/09/2016 Rs. 50 lakhs on 17/10/2016 when already the assessee/relatives of the assessee are holding Rs. 95 lakhs cash on 1/9/2016. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that, in the absence of any cogent evidences, establishing the purpose of withdrawals, we allow a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs deposited on 16/11/2016 being the first deposit by the assessee consequent to demonetization. Revenue appeal is partly allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the cash deposit of Rs. 92,47,500.
2. Legitimacy of the cash deposit of Rs. 1.65 Crores during the demonetization period.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the Cash Deposit of Rs. 92,47,500:

The Revenue challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the cash deposit of Rs. 92,47,500, arguing that the nature and source of this deposit were not satisfactorily explained by the assessee. The Ld. AO treated these cash credits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act and assessed it under section 115BBE. The Ld. CIT(A) had held that the cash deposits were linked to the sale of agricultural land and did not constitute taxable income, thus not warranting the application of section 69A.

The Ld. DR argued that the sale deed for the agricultural land was executed for Rs. 92.47 lakhs, and the purchaser confirmed that no additional cash was paid beyond the amount mentioned in the sale deed. The cash deposits were made from 10/04/2016 onwards, while the sale deed was registered on 20/09/2016, indicating a discrepancy in the timeline of transactions.

The Ld. AR contended that the amount represented "on money" received from the sale of agricultural land and should not be treated under section 69A. However, the Tribunal found merit in the Ld. DR's argument that the cash deposits could not be substantiated as on money transactions due to lack of evidence and the purchaser's denial of any additional cash payment. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. AO's decision to disallow the cash deposits as unexplained money.

2. Legitimacy of the Cash Deposit of Rs. 1.65 Crores During the Demonetization Period:

The Revenue also contested the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision regarding the cash deposit of Rs. 1.65 Crores, arguing that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory evidence for the source of these deposits. The Ld. AO noted that the assessee had withdrawn Rs. 1.70 Crores from his NRO account between 1/9/2016 and 17/10/2016, purportedly for purchasing agricultural land, and subsequently redeposited the amount during the demonetization period.

The Ld. DR questioned the necessity of such large cash withdrawals without identifying the seller of the land and pointed out that the deposits were made in multiple installments rather than a single transaction. The Ld. AR argued that the cash was withdrawn for land acquisition and redeposited due to demonetization, maintaining that the cash book showed sufficient balance.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the Ld. AO had accepted the cash withdrawals from the assessee's bank account but questioned the purpose of these withdrawals. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate the claim of intended land purchase. Given the lack of evidence and the improbability of holding such large cash amounts, the Tribunal allowed only the first deposit of Rs. 25 lakhs made on 16/11/2016, considering it reasonable due to the demonetization context.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Ld. AO's decision regarding the cash deposit of Rs. 92,47,500 as unexplained money and allowing only Rs. 25 lakhs of the Rs. 1.65 Crores deposited during demonetization. The judgment emphasizes the necessity of providing cogent evidence to substantiate claims of cash deposits and the importance of aligning transaction timelines with documented evidence.