Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2016 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 1378 - KERALA HIGH COURTAddition of gift receipt from the NRI brother - addition u/s 68 - Held that:- The conditions which are required to be proved by the assessee are the identity of the creditor, the capacity of the creditor to advance the money and the genuineness of the transaction. In so far as this case is concerned, the identity of the creditor has been established by the assessee. However, in so far as the creditworthiness of the donor is concerned, according to us, the Tribunal has, on facts, rightly held that the assessee has failed to discharge the burden. Similar is the case with the genuineness of the transactions also. The assessee has not produced the balance sheet or financial statement or cash flow statement of the donor. Similarly, there was also no material to show that the sums gifted were the sums received by the donor on his requirement from the firm of which he was a partner. That apart, it was also found that the donor had received his retirement benefits from the firm in the previous assessment year and in the previous year also, the assessee had received substantial sums from the donor. The authenticity of the certificate of disbursement of sums to the donor, issued by the firm, also was rightly declined to be accepted for non production of supporting documents. Therefore, we concur with the view of the Tribunal that the creditworthiness of the donor was not established. In so far as the genuineness of the transaction is concerned, it could have been established by the assessee by producing materials to show that the money gifted were from the own funds of the donor. On this aspect also, there was total dearth of materials. We agree with the Tribunal that the assessee failed to discharge the burden under section 68 of the Act and therefore, the addition was rightly upheld. - Decided against assessee. Addition to cover up the deficiencies noticed in the books of accounts relating to contract business - Held that:- The addition of ₹ 2 lakhs was sustained by the Tribunal for absence of independent cross-verifiable vouchers and other documents. Here again, this factual finding cannot be said to be wrong in any manner. In such circumstances, we uphold the factual conclusion of the Tribunal and according to us, the order of the Tribunal does not give rise to any question of law for consideration of this Court.
|