2024 (8) TMI 170 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained money u/s 69A - AO making the addition by taking the rate @ 77.25% by attracting Sec 115BBE instead of taxing as per normal tax slab - during demonetization period, the assessee has deposited Rs. 36.50 lacs in the form of Specified Bank Notes (SBN) in its bank account - HELD THAT - The assessee deposited SBN in the form of Rs. 500 and 1000 notes during demonetization period. The assessee has also shown opening cash in hand, such cash in hand is not disputed either by the AO or by the ld. CIT(A). Rather the ld. CIT(A) accepted that as on April, 2016, the assessee was having opening cash in hand of Rs. 9,25,837/-. The withdrawals of each and every month is not at all in dispute. Assessee has given details of cash expenses, none of the figures of cash expenses are disputed by the lower authorities. Once, neither the withdrawal is disputed nor opening cash balance is disputed nor expenses is disputed, thus, disputing the availability of cash in hand is not justified . Even after deposit of Rs. 36.50 lacs, the assessee has shown Rs. 9,72,482/- as cash in hand, which is also not disputed by the Assessing Officer as well as by the ld. CIT(A) - action of AO is based on mere suspicion and guess work, therefore, when the assessee has proved the source of cash withdrawals, no addition on account of deposit during demonetization period is justified when the assessee has no option except to deposit the high denomination notes in bank. Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 36,50,000/- as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Application of tax rate @ 77.25% under Section 115BBE instead of normal tax slab.
3. Retroactive application of Section 115BBE.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 36,50,000/- as Unexplained Money under Section 69A:
The assessee, a firm engaged in civil contracts, was scrutinized for the Assessment Year 2017-18. During demonetization, it deposited Rs. 36.50 lacs in Specified Bank Notes (SBN) into its bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) questioned the source of these deposits. The assessee claimed the deposits were from cash withdrawals made between April and October 2016, providing detailed month-wise data of cash withdrawals and expenses. However, the AO rejected this explanation, citing discrepancies in cash withdrawal and expense patterns compared to previous years, suggesting artificial inflation of cash in hand to justify the deposits. Consequently, the AO treated the entire deposit as unaccounted income under Section 69A and taxed it under Section 115BBE.

Upon appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, doubting the necessity of large cash withdrawals when substantial cash was already in hand. The CIT(A) referenced Supreme Court rulings in CIT Vs Durga Prasad More and Sumati Dayal Vs CIT to support the decision.

The Tribunal, however, found that the AO did not dispute the withdrawals or the opening cash balance. The assessee provided comprehensive evidence of cash withdrawals, deposits, and expenses, none of which were contested by the lower authorities. The Tribunal noted that the AO's addition was based on suspicion and guesswork, lacking substantive evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the entire addition under Section 69A, allowing this ground of appeal.

2. Application of Tax Rate @ 77.25% under Section 115BBE:
The assessee contended that the AO erred in applying the enhanced tax rate of 77.25% under Section 115BBE instead of the normal tax slab. The AO had applied the enhanced rate retroactively, which the assessee argued was incorrect. The Tribunal did not need to adjudicate this issue separately as the primary addition under Section 69A was deleted, rendering this ground infructuous.

3. Retroactive Application of Section 115BBE:
The assessee argued against the retroactive application of the revised Section 115BBE, which was duly substituted and inserted retrospectively, asserting it should be taxed at the previous rate of 35.54%. The Tribunal did not address this issue separately, as the deletion of the addition under Section 69A made this ground moot.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the addition of Rs. 36,50,000/- as unexplained money under Section 69A was unjustified, given the substantiated cash withdrawals and expenses. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the need to adjudicate the other grounds became infructuous. The Tribunal's decision was announced in open court on 31st July 2024.

← Previous Next →