9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 1431 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 r . w.s. 115BBE - unexplained cash credit - cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization period - HELD THAT - The pattern of cash sales and cash deposits are consistent and same trend of cash sales and deposits thereof in bank account continues in the later period as well. There is no remarkable difference in the pattern of business in pre-demonetization period or in the post demonetization period. The survey operation carried out by the Revenue as a surprise check also confirms the fact that assessee carried out cash sales and makes deposits thereof in the wake of absence of any discrepancy in the closing stock cash in hand etc. The books of accounts are audited and not rejected by the AO which further gives an assurance towards bonafide of cash sales. The receipts against cash sales have found its way in the bank account in the ordinary course of business. The consignment sale agreement and working of commission and service tax returns etc. yet again provide sound basis to the submissions propounded on behalf of the assessee. In the absence of any anomaly detected either in the course of survey or in the books of account the source of cash deposit during demonetization recorded to be out of cash sales of tobacco products in ordinary course could not have been treated as unsatisfactory by the AO. CIT(A) to our mind has rightly discredited the action of the AO on appraisal of factual matrix. CIT(A) has examined the issue threadbare and has dealt with factual aspects in a very cogent and precise manner. The process of reasoning adopted by the CIT(A) resonates with the facts on record. We thus do not consider it expedient to reiterate and repeat each observations made by the CIT(A). We fully endorse the process of reasoning adopted by the CIT(A) and conclusion derived thereon in the matter. CIT(A) has rightly obliterated and reversed the additions made u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE towards cash deposits and rightly held that the source of cash deposits have live link and clear nexus to the cash sales carried out in a routine manner by the assessee. The adverse action of the AO is devoid of any weight whereas the direct and circumstantial evidences placed by the assessee carries overwhelming rationale and probative value and hence cannot be brushed aside. Decided against revenue.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issues considered in this judgment are:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act 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 regarding the nature and source of any sum credited in the books of accounts, the sum may be charged as income of the assessee. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined whether the cash deposits during the demonetization period could be considered unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a consignment agent for M/s Dharam Pal Satya Pal Group, selling tobacco products on behalf of the principal. The sales prices are fixed by the principal, and the assessee earns income through commission, not from the sales themselves. Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal found that the cash deposits were consistent with the assessee's business operations. The books of accounts were audited and not rejected by the AO, and there was no discrepancy in the stock or cash in hand during the survey. The CIT(A) had accepted the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the source of cash deposits, supported by documentary evidence, including sales invoices and VAT returns. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principles of Section 68, considering the consistency and regularity of the cash deposits with the business operations. The Tribunal found that the cash deposits were adequately explained as arising from cash sales, and there was no evidence of undisclosed income. Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued that the cash deposits were unexplained and beyond comprehension, given the physical cash found during the survey. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had rightly accepted the assessee's explanation, supported by evidence, and that the AO's addition was based on mere suspicion without substantiating evidence. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition under Section 68, as the cash deposits were satisfactorily explained as arising from the assessee's business operations. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The Tribunal endorsed the CIT(A)'s reasoning: "The CIT(A) has examined the issue threadbare and has dealt with factual aspects in a very cogent and precise manner. The process of reasoning adopted by the CIT(A) resonates with the facts on record." Core principles established: The judgment reinforces the principle that mere suspicion or presumption cannot replace concrete evidence when determining the nature of cash deposits under Section 68. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of corroborating evidence and the consistency of business operations in evaluating the source of cash deposits. Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 28,63,10,588/- under Section 68, affirming that the cash deposits were adequately explained as arising from legitimate business activities. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
|
