Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a trader, deposited Rs. 10,46,000 during the demonetization period, claiming it as cash sales. The Assessing Officer treated this as unexplained income under Section 69A, citing the non-production of a cash book due to a technical glitch. The CIT(A) upheld this addition.
Held
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69A was not justified. It noted that the assessee had provided substantial documentary evidence, including audited financial statements and VAT returns, to substantiate the cash sales. The non-production of the cash book was due to a genuine technical issue and did not warrant disallowing the entire deposit.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of cash deposits as unexplained income under Section 69A is justified solely due to the non-production of a cash book when other substantial documentary evidence supports the genuineness of the cash sales?
Sections Cited
147, 148, 68, 115BBE, 69A, 139(1), 44AB, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, AM : Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 11.06.2025 passed by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for A.Y. 2017-18.
917-Chd-2025 MUKESH KUMAR, Ludhiana 2
2. Grounds of appeal, as raised by the Assessee are reproduced as under:
1. 1. 1. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A), NFAC in Appeal No. NFAC/2016-17/10114367 has erred in passing order dtd. 11.06.2025 in contravention of provisions of S. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act").
2. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of Ld. AO of initiating, continuing and then concluding the impugned assessment u/s 148 r.w.s. 147 and hence the impugned assessment order deserves to be quashed.
3. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 10,46,000/- u/s 68 by erroneously treating cash deposit in bank during the demonetisation period as unexplained cash credits, without appreciating that the same represented genuine sale proceeds.
4. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in imposing tax rate of 60% u/s 115BBE plus surcharge thereon on above addition made u/s 68 in Ground No. 3, even when if the said addition 917-Chd-2025 MUKESH KUMAR, Ludhiana 3 is accepted academically, the same could only have been taxed at normal slab rates.
5. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the order passed by Ld. AO and then by Worthy CIT(A) u/s 250 deserves to be quashed since the same has been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
6. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same.
During proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee has filed a brief Synopsis cum written submissions, which is reproduced as under:-
The Appellant is an individual engaged in the business of Trading in General Merchandise as the proprietor of M/s. Ravindra Chemical & General Agencies and has filed its original return of income u/s 139(1) on 08.09.-2017, declaring a. total income of Rs. 7,90,960/-.
The case was reopened and notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2021 based on information received during the assessment of the Appellant's brother, Shri Mahcsh Kumar. It was noted that cash of Rs. 10,46,000/- was deposited into an Oriental Bank of Commerce account during the demonetization period. Shri Mahesh Kumar submitted that he was not the owner of the account and that the ultimate beneficiary of the cash deposits was the Appellant, Shri 917-Chd-2025 MUKESH KUMAR, Ludhiana 4 Mukesh Kumar. As the source of this deposit was alleged to have remained unexplained, proceedings u/s 147 were initiated in the case of the assessee.
3. During the demonetization period (9th November to 30th December, 2016), the assessee deposited a sum of Rs. 10,46,000/- in his bank account maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce. This amount was duly recorded as part of cash sales in the regular course of business and has already been offered to tax as part of business income. The Ld. AO passed order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B on 26.03.2022, making addition of Rs. 10,46,000/- u/s 69A of the Act and the only basis of the addition is the non-production of proper cash book at assessment stage.
4. The Appellant challenged this addition before the Worthy CIT(A). However, the appeal was dismissed vide order dtd. 11.06.2025, wherein the Worthy CIT(A) upheld the addition, concurring with the ld. AO that the non-production of proper cash book was fatal to the Appellant's case and observing that there was a "huge jump in cash sale just before the demonetization period.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Appellant has filed the present appeal.
Issue on Merits of the Addition in challenge before the Hon'ble ITAT: 6. The assessee is in the business of trading in general merchandise. His business primarily caters to retail customers, where the majority of sales are conducted in cash. During the demonetization period (09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016), the assessee deposited Rs. 10,46,000/- in his bank account maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce. These deposits were sourced out of cash sales made during the ordinary course of business, to substantiate 917-Chd-2025 MUKESH KUMAR, Ludhiana 5 the same the assessee submitted its audited financial statements for AY 2017-18, accompanied by a Tax Audit Report u/s 44AB, details of month-wise sale and purchase, VAT returns, bank statements, etc.
Despite this, the Id. AO treated the deposit of Rs. 10.46 lakh as unexplained u/s 69A, solely because proper cash book could not be produced. The reason for non-production was clearly explained as the computerized data of the assessee got corrupted during GST software migration on 01.07.2017.
8. The Worthy CIT(A), while sustaining the addition, relied on the reasoning that cash sales in September and October 2016 were higher compared to earlier months. However, no evidence was brought on record to establish that these sales were fictitious or that they were not backed by stock, bills, or VAT returns. The finding is based on surmises and conjecture rather than any material evidence.
The addition of Rs. 10.46 lakh has been made only because of the non-production of cash book despite overwhelming corroborative evidence supporting the genuineness of sales and deposits.
Crucially, the neither the Id. AO nor the Worthy CIT(A) rejected the books or raised queries with regard to purchases and sales made during the year. Even the stock position was not in question before both the authorities. 11.Hence, the sole issue now before the Hon'ble Bench is - Whether the addition of Rs. 10,46,000/- u/s 69A was justified when the assessee had already substantiated the source of deposit through audited accounts, VAT returns, bank statements, and purchase/sale details, and when the only ground for rejection was the non-production of the cash book, which could not be retrieved due to a genuine technical issue?
917-Chd-2025 MUKESH KUMAR, Ludhiana 6
Arguments: a. Documentary Evidence Submitted. Yet No Defects Found. Acceptance of Sales, Purchases, and Stock Implies Acceptance of Cash Realisation i. The foundation of the Appellant's case rests on the comprehensive documentary evidence submitted, which clearly explains the source of the cash deposits. The assessee provided the following documents before the authorities: I. Audited financial statements and Tax Audit Report u/s 44AB: The audit report was unqualified and confirmed that proper books of account were maintained. II Month-wise details of sales and purchases duly supported by VAT returns filed with the Sales Tax Department. These VAT returns were accepted without objection by the sales tax authorities. These returns substantiated the turnover declared in the books III Bank statements showing regular cash deposits not only during the demonetization window but also in the preceding years, thereby establishing that deposits were a normal incident of business. IV Comparative statements of turnover, gross profit, net profit, cash sales, and deposits across earlier years, which demonstrated complete consistency. Detailed month-wise registers of sales and purchases were provided to establish the availability of sufficient stock to support the sales made during the year. ii. It is submitted that neither the Id. AO nor the Worthy CIT(A) pointed out any specific defect in sales, purchases, or stock records. Even 917-Chd-2025 MUKESH KUMAR, Ludhiana 7 the VAT returns, which are filed under a separate taxing statute and independently scrutinized, were accepted. iii. Once all primary evidence was available and not disproved, there was no basis to make an adverse inference merely because one document, i.e., the cash book, could not be retrieved properly. iv. It is submitted that the stand taken by the Ld. AO and upheld by the Worthy CIT(A) is fundamentally contradictory. On one hand, the revenue has: I. Not Rejected the sales turnover of Rs. 1,87,37,911/- as declared by the assessee. II. Not rejected purchases made by the assessee amounting to Rs. 1,71,82,037/- III. Not doubted the opening (Rs. 17,16,400/-) or closing stock (Rs. 16,01,900/-) as reflected in the audited financials, IV. Accepted the Gross Profit and Net Profit computed from the above figures. Further it is submitted that if addition is unsustainable when made without rejecting the documentary evidence filed by the assessee or pointing out defect is incomprehensible as to how the proceeds received in cash from those very (accepted) sales be treated as unexplained. Cash received from sales is the natural and direct result of the sales transaction. Once sales are accepted as genuine, the proceeds of those sales, whether received in cash or by cheque, cannot be doubted. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judicial precedents: • ACIT vs Raj Bajwa, dtd. 18.02.2025 (Delhi ITAT)
• Balwinder Kumar vs ITO, 256/Asr/2022, dtd. 31.01.2023 (Amritsar ITAT)
917-Chd-2025 MUKESH KUMAR, Ludhiana 8 • Balaji Mech Tech Pvt Ltd vs ITO, 556/Del/2024, dtd. 25.09.2024, (Delhi ITAT) b. Factual Consistency Establishes Genuineness of Business Pattern, hence the addition u/s 69A is unwarranted i. A comparative analysis of the Appellant's financial data demonstrates a consistent business pattern, and establish that the demonetization deposits were completely in line with the normal course of business. ii. The below table depicts gross profit and net profit trends of the assessee during the past three years, it is amply clear that the gross profit margin has remained steady in the range of 6%-7.6%. Net profit margins, though fluctuating, are consistent with business realities. AY Turnover (Rs.) GP (Rs.) GP % NP (Rs.) NP % 2015-16 2,06,19,971 12,77,070 6.19% 7,11,148 3.44% 2016-17 1,46,70,075 11,00,040 7.49% 1,72,932 1.17% 2017-18 1,87,37,911 14,33,359 7.64% 3,14,511 1.67% Importantly, there is no unusual spike in profits that would suggest manipulation of sales during demonetization. The GP and NP rate has steadily improved, showing business efficiency, not fabrication. iii. Now coming to the cash sale, and cash deposit pattern of the assessee, it is submitted that the assessee's business is retail-oriented, and cash sales naturally constitute a very high percentage of turnover (between 79%- 86%). Similarly, cash deposits in the bank account are consistently more than 50% of turnover. The deposit of Rs. 10.46 lakh during the demonetization window falls well within this consistent pattern and cannot be singled out as unusual or unexplained. The following table depicts a clear picture on the cash sale and cash deposit patter of the assessee :
917-Chd-2025 MUKESH KUMAR, Ludhiana 9 AY Turnover (Rs.) Cash Sales (Rs.) % Cash Sales Cash Deposited % Cash Deposit (Rs.) wrt Turnover 2016-17 1,46,70,075 1,25,88,895 85.81% 84,51,000 57.60% 2017-18 1,87,37,911 1,48,93,838 79.48% 1,24,36,000 66.36% Notably, from the above table, it is evident that the percentage of cash sales to total turnover of the assessee has decreased in A.Y. 2017-18 compared to the previous year. This directly contradicts the revenue's theory of inflated cash sales. The Ld. CIT(A)'s finding of a "huge jump in cash sale" by cherry-picking only two months and ignoring the annual pattern leads misleading conclusions and upheld the addition u/s 69A of the Act. iv. Further, it is submitted that during the assessment proceedings, vide his reply dtd. 23.03.2022 to the SCN cum draft assessment order issued by the ld. AO discharged its burden by clearly explaining that the deposits of Rs. 10.46 lakh represented cash sales made in the ordinary course of business and were duly recorded in the regular books of account and supported the same by evidence such as VAT returns, audited financial statements, sales/purchase registers, and bank statements, reconciliation of deposits with turnover, etc. The Id. AO in its impugned order dtd. 26.03.2022 made no attempt to controvert the reply on merits. The order proceeds as if no explanation was furnished, when in fact, a detailed reply along with supporting documents was filed. The Worthy CIT(A) too has not given due consideration to the contents of the reply. It is trite law that once an assessee furnishes a plausible and documentary-backed proper explanation, the revenue authorities must deal with it on merits and give cogent reasons for rejecting it. v. Furthermore, your honour's kind attention is brought towards the fact that the present case does not fall within the mischief of section 69A of the Act, as wrongly assumed by the authorities below. The assessee has, at every stage, furnished comprehensive documentary evidence including audited financial statements, VAT returns, month-wise sale and 917-Chd-2025 MUKESH KUMAR, Ludhiana 10 purchase details, and bank statements, which fully explain the nature and source of the cash deposits. These documents clearly establish that the deposits were nothing but sale proceeds from the regular business, duly recorded in the books of account and reflected in the audited turnover. Reliance in this regard is placed on the law laid down the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of D.N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Patna and another, 3 SCC 378.
Thus, it is not a case where the assessee could not explain or produce the required evidence; rather, it is a case where the authorities have failed to acknowledge the explanations and materials placed on record, and by ignoring the same, have wrongly invoked s. 69A to sustain an unjustified addition. vi. Therefore, the deposit during demonetization stood properly explained and entirely consistent with the Appellant's past business pattern and hence, cannot be treated as unexplained. c. Non-production of Cash Book Was Due to Genuine and Unavoidable Reason i. The only ground on which the Ld. AO and subsequently the Worthy CIT(A) rejected the assessee's explanation is non-production of proper cashbook. It is an admitted position that all other records - audited financial statements, VAT returns, purchase and sales registers, bank statements - were duly furnished were not found defective. Yet, solely because the day-to-day cashbook could not be produced in its original form, the entire cash deposit was treated as unexplained u/s 69A without giving emphasis to the other documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. ii. The Appellant had explained that due to GST software migration on 01.07.2017, the earlier data got corrupted and could not be retrieved. This was a genuine technical glitch beyond the Appellant's control.
917-Chd-2025 MUKESH KUMAR, Ludhiana 11 iii. It is worthwhile to mention that before this corruption occurred, the books of account, including the cashbook, had already been examined by an independent Chartered Accountant during the tax audit. The auditor issued an unqualified report, confirming that proper books had been maintained and that the trading results were correct. This establishes that the cashbook was properly maintained at the relevant time, and its later non-availability was purely accidental and not intentional. iv. A genuine and technical lapse cannot override substantive evidences submitted in the course of proceedings. Courts have consistently held that when substantive evidence supports the assessee's claim, technical lapses cannot be the sole basis for an addition. Therefore, the non- production of one record cannot nullify the overwhelming evidence on record and no addition can be made unices the revenue can demonstrate that the explanation is otherwise false. d. CBDT SOP on Operation Clean Money Supports the Assessee i. The Worthy CIT(A) while upholding the addition u/s 69A relied on the SOP issued by the CBDT under the operation clean money and observed the following in para 6.4 of its order dtd. 11.06.2025 : "6.4 From proforma chart for SOP issued by CBDT under operation clean money. It can be noticed that in September 2015 cash sale was Rs. 10,26,777/- and October 2015 cash sale was at Rs. 6,94,205/- only. However, in September 2016 cash sale was shown at Rs. 25,27,927/- and in October 2016 cash sale was 21,75,308 /-this shows that cash sale has been increased for more than 1.5 times in September 2016 and 3 times in October 2016 in comparison to same period of 2015. The appellant has not explained any reason why there is huge jump in the cash sale. Therefore, non-production of cash book and huge jump in cash sale just before the demonetization period shows that cash sale was fabricated and unreliable" ii. As per the SOP issued by the CBDT, the stated objective was to ensure a systematic and uniform approach to verifying cash deposits 917-Chd-2025 MUKESH KUMAR, Ludhiana 12 made during the demonetization window. The SOP provided clear guidance with regard to the following measures to be taken by the Id. AO for verification of cash deposits with reference to the past business history of the assessee, from books of accounts, VAT returns, and audited financial statements, etc. t Applying the same in the present case, the assessee has fulfilled all the three benchmarks as mentioned in the SOP by submitting the following during the course of proceedings : a. Consistency with Past Trends: As shown in the comparative tables above, the assessee has had high cash sales in the past (79-86% of turnover) and substantial cash deposits (57-66% of turnover). The deposit of Rs. 10.46 lakh falls within this consistent annual pattern. b. Corroborative Documentation: The assessee furnished audited financials, tax audit report, VAT returns, sales and purchase registers, and bank statements, which are precisely the documents that the SOP requires to be examined. None of these were found defective and no query was ever raised by any of the authorities in these documents. c. Onus Discharged: The assessee discharged his onus by producing documentary evidence. Thereafter, the burden shifted to the Id. AO to disprove the explanation with concrete material. ii. Further it is submitted that the assessee also submitted a proforma chart before the Worthy CIT(A) as prescribed the CBDT in its SOP which fulfils the exact test laid down by CBDT, the same was however ignored by the Worthy CIT(A) while upholding the said addition and rather laid emphasis only on selective months thereby disregarding the CBDT's own guidelines. iii. Thus, by CBDT's own framework, the assessee's explanation was sufficient and no addition should have been made. The addition, in 917-Chd-2025 MUKESH KUMAR, Ludhiana 13 fact, runs contrary to binding instructions of CBDT and deserves to be deleted.
Tax imposed by the Id. AO (a)60% on the total addition u/s 115BBE is wrong It is submitted that the tax imposed by the Id. AO @ 60% on the total addition u/s 115BBE is wrong. As per S.115BBE the rate of tax imposed is increased from 30% to 60% and the same is applicable with effect from 01.04.2017 onwards as per the amendment. Therefore, the same is applicable to any transaction from 01.04.2017 onwards and nor prior to any transactions prior to 01.04.2017. Since in the present case all alleged transactions arc for the period from 08.1 1.2016 to 30.12.2016, hence the erstwhile rate of tax 30% only is applicable. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in S.M.I.L.E Microfinance Limited vs. ACIT, W.P.(MD)No. 2078 of 2020 {copy appended at page 164-187 of AJC), has held that- "the revenue is empowered to impose 60% rate o f tax for the transactions from 01.04.2017 onwards and not prior to the said cut-off date. And for prior transaction the revenue is empowered to impose only 30% rate o f tax." This judicial precedent was followed by the Hon'ble courts in the following decisions : Leela Dutt Sharma vs ITO, (Chandigarh ITAT) Comal Ramchandaarn Gayathri vs DCIT, (Chennai ITAT) Shree Ramraja Homes Pvt Ltd vs DCIT, (Agra ITAT) B D R Sewing Notions Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, ITA No. 2394/Del/2024 (Delhi ITAT) Devender Kumar Garg vs ACIT, ITA No. 1027/Del/2024 (Delhi ITAT)
917-Chd-2025 MUKESH KUMAR, Ludhiana 14
Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.
We have considered the findings given by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order and by the Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. We find that the claim of the Assessee is that it had sufficient stock for sale just before the demonetization period and during monetization period. The Assessee also filed the audited books of account before the Assessing Officer. No discrepancy has been found or brought on record by the AO. Though once the stock is available with the Assessee and the Assessee’s claim that it has sold it for cash and deposited the same in the bank account, then in that case, without finding any fault with the stock register or purchase made by the Assessee and accepting the sale also, the sale proceeds received in cash and its deposit in the bank account cannot be disallowed.
In this case, even the books of account of the Assessee have not been rejected by the lower authorities.
917-Chd-2025 MUKESH KUMAR, Ludhiana 15 Simply because the Assessee could not produce cash book for technical reasons to the Assessing Officer that could not be sole reason for making addition of the entire amount deposit in the bank. The counsel of the Assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer was informed that due to genuine and unavoidable reasons, the cash book which was available on the computer only could not be retrieved as there was some technical problem with the system. Even in the past, form the written submissions filed, we find that the Assessee had made cash sales even in the past and the same were deposited in the bank account which was accepted by the Revenue. The Assessee furnished before the Assessing Officer the audited finances, tax audit report, VAT report, sales and purchase registers and bank account and all of them have been accepted by the AO without finding no fault with them. In that case, we do not find any reason to disallow the cash sales made by the Assessee which has been duly deposited in the bank account.
917-Chd-2025 MUKESH KUMAR, Ludhiana 16
7. Keeping in view these facts and the different case laws brought on record by the counsel of the Assessee, we are of this considered view that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and its confirmation by the Ld. CIT(A) cannot be sustained. Accordingly, Assessee’s appeal on this ground is allowed.
Since we have allowed the Assessee’s appeal on merits, therefore, we are not inclined to pass any order on the technical / legal ground which in any case is just academic in nature.