NAYAGI FIREWORKS LIMITED, MADURAI V. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2, , MDU

ITA 795/CHNY/2022

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Nayagi Fireworks Limited, which appealed against the addition of cash deposits amounting to Rs.99.50 Lacs for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The primary issue was the confirmation of these additions by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The Assessing Officer had initially added these deposits as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, citing lack of evidence to substantiate the source of the deposits. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanations were not supported by documentary evidence and thus, the burden of proof was not discharged. However, considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal provided another opportunity for the assessee to substantiate its claims.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 134123 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 18-09-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business expenditure; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 68; 143(3)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” ायपीठ चे ई म । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय ी महावीर िसंह, उपा ! एवं माननीय ी मनोज कुमार अ%वाल ,लेखा सद( के सम!। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.795/Chny/2022 (िनधा)रण वष) / As sessment Year: 2017-18) M/s. Nayagi Fireworks Limited 4/70, Thayilpatti, Via Sivakasi Virudhunagar Dist. PIN : 626 128 बनाम / V s . ACIT Corporate Circle-2 Madurai. थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. A AC C N -2 956- R (अपीलाथ /Appellant) : ( थ / Respondent) अपीलाथ की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.AR थ की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 02-08-2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 08-09-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. The sole grievance of the assessee in captioned appeal for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 is confirmation of addition of cash deposits of Rs.99.50 Lacs. The impugned order has been passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] on 21-07-2022 in the matter of an assessment framed by learned Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 143(3) on 18- 12-2019. The assessee being resident corporate assessee is stated to 2 ITA No.795/Chny/2022 be engaged in manufacturing of fire crackers which are used during festival seasons. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments and submitted that the cash in hand as on 08-11-2016 was duly supported by the cash book as maintained by the assessee. The Ld. AR drew attention to the summary of cash in hand as noted in the impugned order. It was further submitted that no fault was found in the books of accounts. The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of lower authorities and submitted that the assessee did not furnish requisite evidences to establish the source of cash deposit. Proceedings before lower authorities 3.1 During assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee made cash deposits Rs.100.50 Lacs after demonetization during 14-11- 2016 to 31-12-2016 as tabulated in para-3 of the assessment order. The assessee submitted that the cash was sourced out of cash balance standing in the books as on 08-11-2016. However, Ld. AO held that the assessee failed to substantiate the accruals from sales collection, recovery of worker advances etc. The assessee failed to file the evidences like name, PAN, address of customers, stock registers, stock movements etc. Accordingly, the Ld. AO added the same to the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. 3.2 During the appellate proceedings, the assessee summarized the cash position as under: - Description Amount (Rs.) Opening balance as on 09.11.2016 as petty cash 5,65,085.50 i. Add: Opening cash balance in "Cash-Bank-OTS Accumulation A/c 96,90,000.00 ii. Add: Worker’s advance received back on 07.11.2016 as SBN 2,60,000.00 iii. Other receipts from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 5,39,784.00 Total 1,10,54,869.50 3 ITA No.795/Chny/2022 iv. Less: Cash received to bank as SBN 1,00,50,000.00 Balance 10,04,869.50 v. Less: Other regular business expenses by cash from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 9,12,148.50 Balance closing cash balance as on 30.12.2016 92,721.00 On the basis of the same, the assessee submitted that the source of cash deposit was duly explained. From the aforesaid summary, it could be seen that substantial amount of Rs.96.90 Lacs is stated to be sourced out of OTS-Accumulation Account. Accordingly, the assessee claimed that the source was duly explained. 3.3 The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed addition of worker’s advance received back for Rs.2.60 Lacs by observing that the assessee could not file even iota of evidence to prove that this amount was genuinely worker’s advance received back. 3.4 Regarding OTS-Accumulation Account, the assessee submitted that the assessee obtained loan from SBI, Sivakasi. The loan limit was Rs.4.90 Crores. The assessee started negotiating for repayment of loan as one time settlement (OTS). However, the bank did not agree for waiver of any part of loan. Finally, bank loan account became NPA from 12.08.2018 onwards and the bank served notice under SARFESI Act on 14.08.2018 for recovery of loan. The assessee had started hoarding cash for bank OTS accumulation account and kept this cash in custody of its directors. The accumulated cash was Rs.96.90 Lacs from 04.04.2016 to 09.11.2016. After demonetization was announced, this cash was deposited on piecemeal basis expecting that bank would yield for OTS acceptance. 3.5 However, Ld. CIT(A) rejected the aforesaid submissions of the assessee by observing as under: - 4 ITA No.795/Chny/2022 (ii) The entire contention of appellant is not supported by any documentary evidence. The bank loan account became NPA on 12.08.2018 and notice under SARFESI Act was issued by bank on 14.08.2018. The appellant instead of paying off the bank loan of Principal and Interest started hoarding the cash for OTS. This action of appellant itself is not valid in the eyes of law. Appellant has been unable to explain the· source of this cash accumulation of Rs.96,90,000/- from 04.04.2016 to 09.11.2016. What was the source of this cash accumulation along with dates i.e. from the amount received in cash from sales, from the amount received from Debtors in cash or from any other source connected with appellant's business etc. None of this has been explained. No documentary evidence has been filed to prove that appellant had opted for OTS with SBI or that appellant intended to opt for OTS. Only a notice under SARFESI Act issued by bank on 14.08.2018 was filed. This notice was issued on August 2018 whereas the appellant claims to have deposited the accumulated cash in its bank account of Rs. 96,90,000/- in November 2016 and December 2016. Thus, this notice under SARFESI Act dated 14.08.2018 in no way supports the appellant's contention of cash accumulation for OTS. This notice just proves that loan account of appellant became NPA on 12.08.2018 and in no way supports the contention of appellant of cash accumulation for OTS from 04.04.2016 to 09.11.2016. Appellant's contention is based on a general statement devoid of any supporting documentary evidences. Appellant has not produced even a single documentary evidence to prove that it had opted for OTS or was on the process of opting for OTS. In view of these facts the contention of appellant is not acceptable. Hence, the addition of Rs. 96,90,000/- made by AO u/s 68 is confirmed. Aggrieved as aforesaid, the assessee is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 4. From the findings as given by Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order, a pertinent fact to be noted is the explanation of the assessee for cash accumulation. As rightly held in the impugned order, the aforesaid explanation was not supported by any documentary evidences. The bank loan account became NPA in subsequent year i.e., on 12.08.2018 and notice under SARFESI Act was issued by bank on 14.08.2018. The assessee, instead of paying-off interest bearing bank loan, accumulated huge cash balance in the books of accounts starting from financial year 2016-17 which could not be said to be a prudent decision. No reasonable / plausible explanation could be furnished by the assessee to support the same. The assessee is unable to explain the source of this 5 ITA No.795/Chny/2022 cash accumulation. The day-wise cash book was not furnished by the assessee before any of the lower authorities. The notice issued by the bank merely supports the fact that the loan account became NPA on 12.08.2018 and nothing else. The assessee could not furnish any documents to substantiate workers’ advances received back. On the basis of these facts, it could be said that the burden as casted upon assessee to establish the source of cash deposit remained un- discharged. 5. Keeping in mind the principle of natural justice and considering the facts of the case, we deem it fit to provide another opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the source of cash deposit. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter of assessment back to the file of Ld. AO for de novo assessment with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its case with evidences. 6. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 8 th September, 2023 Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) उपा ! / VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद( / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे3ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated :08-09-2023 DS आदेशकीAितिलिपअ%ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. थ /Respondent 3. आयकरआयु