2025 (1) TMI 698 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - cash deposit in ICICI Bank unexplained - HELD THAT -Assessee is a commission agent engaged in the business of acting as a middleman for procuring fruit / vegetables and supplying to the shop keepers on commission basis for which the assessee has charged commission. Assessee has also made some purchases and sales of fruits and vegetables on his own account which were also shown in the profit and loss account of the assessee. Thus, the assessee has made purchases and sales on his behalf and also procured goods from producers/suppliers as middleman on commission basis and sold/supplied the same to retailers/shopkeepers. Besides the assessee produced before us the bank statement of ICICI Bank and evidences of cash deposited sale of fruits / receipt and thereafter, on account of Artiaz Services and withdrawal made against cash deposits. We find that there is hardly cash balance left in the bank account after payment to growers. T Thus, no doubt, that the receipt of money by the assessee is from sale of vegetables/ fruits as well as from Artiya Services for which the commission was charged by the assessee. The same cash deposits in the bank cannot be added to the income of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has shown less sales vis- -vis, the cash deposit into the bank, whereas the assessee has shown the commission income from Artiya Services. Thus, source of cash deposits is fully explained. Addition confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) is not correct and has to be deleted - Decided in favour of assessee.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment were:

Whether the cash deposits amounting to Rs. 1,00,95,750/- in the assessee's bank account should be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
Whether the assessee was liable for audit under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act due to exceeding the prescribed turnover limit, and consequently, whether penalty proceedings under Sections 271B and 271A were justified.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Treatment of Cash Deposits as Unexplained Cash Credit

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 68 of the Income Tax Act deals with unexplained cash credits. If an assessee fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for the nature and source of cash deposits, such amounts may be added to their income.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court examined whether the cash deposits were justifiably explained by the nature of the assessee's business activities, which involved acting as a commission agent and engaging in the purchase and sale of fruits and vegetables.
Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee provided evidence of business operations, including balance sheets and bank statements, demonstrating regular cash flow from sales and commission income. The court noted that the cash deposits were consistent with the business's operational model.
Application of Law to Facts: The court found that the assessee's explanation regarding the cash deposits, as proceeds from sales and commission activities, was credible. The deposits were linked to the business transactions, and the funds were used to pay suppliers, leaving minimal cash balance in the bank.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The revenue's argument that the discrepancy between sales and cash deposits indicated unexplained income was countered by the assessee's detailed documentation and explanation of business practices.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the cash deposits were sufficiently explained by the nature of the assessee's business and should not be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68.

Issue 2: Liability for Audit and Penalty Proceedings

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 44AB mandates audit for businesses exceeding a specified turnover. Sections 271B and 271A impose penalties for failure to comply with audit requirements and maintain proper books of accounts.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court did not explicitly address the audit and penalty issues in detail, as the primary focus was on the unexplained cash credit issue. However, the resolution of the primary issue indirectly impacted the audit and penalty considerations.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court's acceptance of the cash deposits as explained income reduced the relevance of turnover exceeding the audit threshold.
Application of Law to Facts: By resolving the primary issue in favor of the assessee, the court implicitly negated the basis for audit and penalty proceedings.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court's decision on the primary issue rendered the revenue's arguments for penalties moot.
Conclusions: The court's ruling effectively nullified the need for audit and penalty considerations, as the cash deposits were not deemed unexplained.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "Taking into account these facts of the case in totality, we have no doubt, that the receipt of money by the assessee is from sale of vegetables/ fruits as well as from Artiya Services for which the commission was charged by the assessee."
Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforced the principle that cash deposits can be justified by demonstrating their connection to legitimate business operations, supported by proper documentation and explanation.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made under Section 68, thereby allowing the appeal of the assessee.

← Previous Next →