2025 (1) TMI 375 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE - cash deposits during demonetization - possibility of assessee s unaccounted money being deposited in cash - HELD THAT - Schedule 5 to the Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2017, the assessee has given details of advances from customers.The assessee has furnished details of cash deposits in the bank on various dates which shows that the cash deposits in the bank are from either cash sales or advances from the customers. The assessee has also given comparative analysis of cash sales during Financial Year 2015-16 2016-17. A comparative analysis of above tables reveal that cash sales during Financial Year 2016-17 are less than in Financial Year 2015-16 and there has been no cash sales in Financial year 2016-17 after December 2016. Details furnished by the assessee reveals that there has been consistent cash deposits in the bank. It is not a case where cash deposits were only during the period of demonetization. The cash deposits in the bank were evenly spread out during whole year. The assessee has also given details of cash deposits during preceding assessment year. The assessee in the normal course of business has been depositing cash every month in the bank account. Thus the explanation furnished by the assessee cannot be rejected out rightly. The assessee has substantiated that in normal course of business, the assessee has been making cash sales and has been depositing same in bank account and has also been receiving cash advances from the customers which were also deposited to the bank account of the assessee. CIT(A) have taken a pedantic view in rejecting explanation furnished by the assessee especially when entire sales including cash sales are duly reflected by the assessee in books of account and the same has been accepted by the AO. Decided in favour of assessee.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues addressed in this judgment are:

Whether the addition of Rs. 45,49,000/- under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to cash deposits during the demonetization period, was justified.
Whether the provisions of Section 115BBE, as amended by the Finance Act 2016, apply retrospectively to the assessment year 2017-18.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Justification of Addition under Section 69A

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 69A of the Income Tax Act concerns unexplained money, bullion, jewelry, or other valuable articles not recorded in the books of account. The assessee argued that cash deposits were from regular business transactions and were duly recorded in the books, citing precedents such as CIT vs. Kailash Jewellery House and others.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court found that the cash deposits were consistently recorded in the books of account and substantiated with month-wise details of cash sales and customer advances. The court emphasized that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not point out any discrepancies in the books of account.
Key evidence and findings: The assessee provided detailed records of cash deposits, cash sales, VAT returns, and bank statements. The court noted that these records showed consistent cash deposits throughout the year, not just during the demonetization period.
Application of law to facts: The court applied Section 69A, noting that the provision is not applicable as the cash deposits were duly recorded in the books. The court also considered the assessee's audited accounts under Section 44AB.
Treatment of competing arguments: The department argued that the cash deposits during demonetization could be unaccounted money. However, the court found the assessee's explanation credible and supported by evidence.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the addition under Section 69A was unjustified as the cash deposits were explained and recorded in the books.

Issue 2: Retrospective Application of Section 115BBE

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 115BBE was amended by the Finance Act 2016 to increase the tax rate from 30% to 60%, effective from April 1, 2017. The assessee argued against retrospective application, citing the decision in Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. vs. State of Kerala.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court agreed with the assessee's interpretation that the amended provisions could not apply retrospectively to the assessment year 2017-18.
Key evidence and findings: The court found the assessee's reliance on legal precedent persuasive, indicating that amendments effective after April 1 apply to the subsequent assessment year.
Application of law to facts: The court applied the principle that amendments are prospective unless explicitly stated otherwise, thus supporting the assessee's position.
Treatment of competing arguments: The department did not provide a compelling argument for retrospective application.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the increased tax rate under Section 115BBE could not apply to the assessment year 2017-18.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The explanation furnished by the assessee cannot be rejected out rightly. The assessee has substantiated that in normal course of business, the assessee has been making cash sales and has been depositing same in bank account and has also been receiving cash advances from the customers which were also deposited to the bank account of the assessee."
Core principles established: The court emphasized the need for the AO to consider the evidence provided by the assessee and not to make additions based on assumptions. It also reinforced the principle that tax law amendments are prospective unless clearly stated otherwise.
Final determinations on each issue: The court set aside the addition of Rs. 45,49,000/- under Section 69A and ruled that the provisions of Section 115BBE, as amended, do not apply retrospectively to the assessment year 2017-18.

← Previous Next →