BRAJGOPAL GUPTA,DABRA vs. ITO, GWALIOR

PDF

ITA 248/AGR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 March 2025Bench: us against quantum additions as well as against penalties as levied by lower authorities. The revenue is also in further appeal against relief granted by Ld. CIT(A) on quantum additions. At the time of hearing, none appeared for assessee and accordingly, the appeals were heard with the able assistance of Ld. CIT-DR who pleaded for restoration of assessment orders as well as confirmation of penalty orders of Ld. AO. First, we take up quantum1 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The assessee is in appeal against quantum additions and penalties. The Revenue is also in appeal against relief granted by the CIT(A). The assessee's case was reopened, and the AO added cash withdrawals and deposits as unexplained income, estimating total income on a best judgment basis. The CIT(A) deleted the addition of cash withdrawals but sustained the addition of cash deposits.

Held

The Tribunal estimated the income from trading activities at 5% of withdrawals, sustaining the addition of cash deposit as the assessee failed to establish its source. The Tribunal also deleted the penalties, stating that estimated income does not automatically imply concealment of income.

Key Issues

Whether cash withdrawals and deposits are to be treated as unexplained income, and whether penalties are leviable when income is estimated.

Sections Cited

69A, 271AAC(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, AGRA

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. The assessee is in further appeal before us against quantum additions as well as against penalties as levied by lower authorities. The revenue is also in further appeal against relief granted by Ld. CIT(A) on quantum additions. At the time of hearing, none appeared for assessee and accordingly, the appeals were heard with the able assistance of Ld. CIT-DR who pleaded for restoration of assessment orders as well as confirmation of penalty orders of Ld. AO. First, we take up quantum appeal which arises out of the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 15-05-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 14-03-2023. 2. The assessee’s case was reopened to examine the financial transactions as reported to the department. The assessee was show caused but the assessee remained non-compliant. Left with no option, Ld. AO added cash withdrawals of Rs.406.66 Lacs to the income of the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A. The assessee made cash deposits of Rs.50.30 Lacs which were also added u/s 69A. The assessee earned contractual receipts of Rs.0.30 Lacs against which Ld. AO estimated income at 8%. The assessee earned interest of Rs.0.51 Lacs which was added as income from other sources. The Tax Auditor reported income of Rs.13.43 Lacs. After adding all these components, Ld. AO determined total income of Rs.470.93 Lacs on best judgment basis.

The Ld. CIT(A), at para 10.6, observed that the cash withdrawals were made out of amount received by the assessee by way of RTGS / NEFT. The credit transactions were out of trading activities and therefore, cash withdrawals were out of trading receipts only. The Ld. AO observed that the assessee made cash deposits of Rs.50.30 Lacs and made cash withdrawals of Rs.406.66 Lacs. Since the source of withdrawals was out of trading receipts, the same could not be added to the income of the assessee. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.406.66 Lacs was deleted whereas addition of cash deposit for Rs.50.30 Lacs was sustained. The adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) has led to cross-appeals before us.

The factual findings as rendered by Ld. CIT(A) remain uncontroverted before us. It is the finding of Ld. CIT(A) that cash withdrawals were out of trading receipts. However, the income from trading activities has not been estimated. Therefore, we estimate the same at 5% of withdrawals of Rs.406.66 Lacs. The addition of cash deposit for Rs.50.30 Lacs is sustained since the assessee has failed to establish the sources thereof. The addition as sustained by us would be subjected to normal rate of tax in terms of decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) in S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. vs. ACIT (WP (MD) No.2078 of 2020 dated 19-11-2024) holding that the revenue is empowered to impose 60% rate of tax for the transactions from 01.04.2017 onwards and not prior to the said cut-off date. The Ld. AO is directed to re-compute the income of the assessee. The cross-appeals stand partly allowed accordingly.