2022 (10) TMI 788 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69A on account of unexplained investment - Cash deposits made by the assessee in his bank account - HELD THAT - On a perusal of Section 69A it transpires that the same contemplates that where in any financial year the assessee is, inter alia, found to be the owner of any money and such money is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and he offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the same; or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the AO satisfactory, then, the money may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the assessee had deposited money in question in his bank account during the year under consideration. Undeniably, as at the time of depositing the aforesaid money the assessee was the owner of the same, therefore, the provisions of Section 69A would clearly be applicable. We, thus, are of the considered view that no infirmity does emerge from the addition of the aforesaid amount u/s.69A of the Act by the A.O. Unexplained cash credit u/s.68 - As in order to verify the authenticity of the aforesaid claim of the assessee had referred to one of the sale transaction in which Shri. Santosh Yadav (supra) was stated to be a purchaser and had appeared a/w. the assessee in the course of the appellate proceedings. On being queried about the source of the aforesaid amount it was claimed by him that the same was the amount that was received from the final purchaser - No details as regards the name and address of the alleged final purchaser were provided by him. Also, in the remaining four sale transactions the story was no better and neither any details about the final purchaser were divulged nor any documents in support thereof were filed by the assessee before the CIT(Appeals). As observed by the CIT(A) that the assessee and his associates had also failed to provide the details of their respective share of profits in their so called land broking business that was claimed to have been jointly carried out by them. It was further observed by the CIT(A) that the brokerage receipt that was shown by the assessee in his return of income could not be corelated with the cash deposits in his bank account. It was, thus, observed by the CIT(Appeals) that considering the facts involved in the case before him the nature and source of the cash deposits could not be proved by the assessee. Although the CIT(Appeals) as observed by us hereinabove had principally concurred with the addition of made by the A.O, but he had held the same as an unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. As the assessee had undeniably failed to substantiate on the basis of irrefutable documentary evidences the nature and source of the cash deposits made in his bank account during the year under consideration, therefore, no infirmity does emerge from the orders of the lower authorities who had rightly made/sustained the addition of the same in the hands of the assessee. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations uphold the addition made by the A.O u/s.69A of the Act. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of Rs.55,58,000 under sec.69A for unexplained investment.
2. Re-characterization of cash deposits as unexplained cash credit u/s.68.
3. Failure to substantiate nature and source of cash deposits.
4. Applicability of sec.69A for making the addition.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals)-II, Raipur, confirming the addition of Rs.55,58,000 made by the A.O under sec.69A on account of unexplained investment. The A.O found that the assessee had made cash deposits without filing the return of income for the relevant assessment year. The assessee claimed the deposits were from his land brokerage business, but failed to provide sufficient evidence. The CIT(Appeals) re-characterized the addition as unexplained cash credit u/s.68, which was challenged by the assessee.

2. The assessee argued that without maintaining books of account, re-characterizing the cash deposits as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 was incorrect. The ITAT agreed with the assessee's contention, citing relevant legal precedents. However, the ITAT noted that reverting the re-characterization would not impact the addition made under sec.69A by the A.O. The ITAT upheld the addition under sec.69A, emphasizing the applicability of the provision due to unexplained cash deposits by the assessee.

3. The assessee failed to substantiate the nature and source of the cash deposits despite claiming they were proceeds from land sale transactions conducted jointly with two others. The CIT(Appeals) found discrepancies in the explanations provided by the assessee and his associates regarding the source of funds and profit-sharing details. The CIT(Appeals) concluded that the cash deposits remained unexplained, leading to the affirmation of the addition under sec.69A by the ITAT.

4. The ITAT analyzed the provisions of sec.69A and determined that as the assessee failed to prove the nature and source of the cash deposits, the addition made by the A.O under sec.69A was justified. The ITAT dismissed the appeal, upholding the addition of Rs.55,58,000 as unexplained income of the assessee for the relevant assessment year.