Facts of the
Case
The assessee, Patliputra Distributors Private
Limited, engaged in wholesale trading, filed its return of income for
Assessment Year 2017-18 on 06.11.2017 declaring income of ₹1,77,07,480. The
case was selected for complete scrutiny and notices under Section 143(2) and
other statutory provisions were issued. During assessment proceedings, the
Assessing Officer noticed cash deposits of ₹2,10,38,900 in the assessee’s
current account with ICICI Bank during the demonetisation period from
09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. The assessee furnished bank book and tax audit report
in Form 3CD. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee failed to
satisfactorily explain the source of cash deposits and treated the same as
unexplained money under Section 69A, making addition and levying tax under
Section 115BBE. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition. Aggrieved, the assessee
filed appeal before the Tribunal.
Issues
Involved
Whether cash deposits made during the
demonetisation period out of business turnover can be treated as unexplained
money under Section 69A, whether the Assessing Officer erred in ignoring
embedded profit already offered to tax, and whether CBDT instructions governing
verification of demonetisation cash deposits were properly followed.
Petitioner’s
Arguments
The assessee contended that the cash deposits
represented business receipts forming part of turnover and that the Assessing
Officer had not disputed the turnover itself. It was argued that profit
embedded in such turnover had already been offered to tax and that treating the
entire cash deposits as unexplained money resulted in double taxation, which is
impermissible under law. It was further submitted that the books of account
were not rejected and that the Assessing Officer acted on conjectures and
surmises without conducting proper examination in accordance with CBDT
instructions relating to demonetisation cases.
Respondent’s
Arguments
The Revenue relied on the orders of the lower
authorities and submitted that the assessee failed to properly explain the
source of cash deposits during the demonetisation period. It was argued that the
quantum of cash deposits during the relevant period was excessive compared to
pre- and post-demonetisation periods and that the assessee did not produce
sufficient evidence during assessment proceedings to establish the genuineness
of the deposits.
Court Order
/ Findings
The ITAT Patna observed that the addition was made
under Section 69A solely for want of proper explanation of cash deposits during
demonetisation, without granting proportionate benefit for embedded profit in
the business turnover. The Tribunal noted that CBDT had issued detailed
instructions requiring comparative and statistical analysis of cash deposits,
cash sales, stock position and past history, which were not adequately followed
by the Assessing Officer. Relying on the coordinate bench decision in Bhoopalam
Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT, the Tribunal held that not every cash
deposit during demonetisation can automatically be treated as unaccounted money
and that proper verification is essential. Accordingly, the matter was remitted
to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination in light of CBDT
instructions after granting reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
Important
Clarification
The Tribunal clarified that while the burden lies
on the assessee to establish the genuineness of cash deposits during
demonetisation, the Assessing Officer is equally obligated to examine such
cases in accordance with CBDT-prescribed procedures and to avoid double
taxation by ignoring embedded profit already offered to tax.
Final Outcome
The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for
statistical purposes, and the issue relating to addition of ₹2,10,38,900 under
Section 69A was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration in
accordance with law after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Link to
download order https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1769072778_PATLIPUTRADISTRIBUTORSPRIVATELIMITEDPATNAVS.DCACCIRCLE2PATNA.pdf
Disclaimer
This
content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only.
Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It
is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The
author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this
content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment