Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 1059 - AT - Income TaxAddition of unexplained credits in the bank account - Held that:- We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the assessee deposited ₹ 3,33,815 in the bank account. Though the assessee claims that this was a trading receipt from garment business, the income from trading of garment is only ₹ 58,250. The assessee could not explain the source from where the deposits were made. Even before this Tribunal, the assessee could not explain the source and means for deposit of ₹ 3,33,815. In the absence of any material and explanation from the assessee, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessing officer has rightly treated the deposit in the bank as unexplained investment. Therefore, the order of the lower authority on this issue is confirmed. - Decided against assessee Addition on investment in property - Held that:- The fact that the assessee purchased property by investing an amount of ₹ 7,10,000 is not disputed. Therefore, it is for the assessee to explain from where the assessee got the funds for making investment and why the same should not be treated as income of the assessee. The assessee has no explanation to offer. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessing officer has rightly taken the entire amount as income of the assessee. This Tribunal do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authority. Accordingly the same is confirmed. - Decided against assessee Addition towards unexplained investment in the bank account and profit from sale of land - Held that:- The assessee has to explain the source for making investment in the landed property. The assessee is engaged in the real estate business, therefore, the profit arising out of purchase and sale of real estate has to be treated as unexplained income. In the absence of any details, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition. It is for the assessee to explain the source for making the deposit in the bank and the source for making the investment in the landed property. It is also the responsibility of the assessee why such investment should not be treated as income of the assessee. In the absence of any explanation from the assessee, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is confirmed. - Decided against assessee Ingenuity of gift - Held that:- To accept the gift, the assessee has to definitely establish the creditworthiness of her father. The contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee is that if the assessee could not explain the creditworthiness, the addition could be made only in the hands of the assessee’s father. The case of the department as it appears from the assessment order clearly shows that Shri George Philip acted as an agent for transfer of funds from unknown person to Smt. Asha Sunil. The assessing officer has also found that the assessee’s father’s bank account is only a conduit for transfer of funds from unidentified person. In the absence of any material to suggest that the assessee’s father has sufficient creditworthiness to credit such a huge money to the assessee, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition. The onus is on the assessee to prove the creditworthiness of her father, genuineness of the transaction and identity of the parties. In this case, though the assessee claims that the funds were transferred from her father’s account, the creditworthiness is not proved. Merely because the funds were transferred from banking channel, it will not prove the genuineness of the transaction as held by the Apex Court in the case of P Mohanakala ( 2007 (5) TMI 192 - SUPREME Court ) - Decided against assessee Undisclosed deposits - Held that:- The assessee has withdrawn an amount of ₹ 2,91,600 from the bank. Since the amount was withdrawn from bank out of the deposit made in the bank, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that ₹ 2,91,600 which was withdrawn from bank cannot be treated as income of the assessee. In other words, the amount of ₹ 2,91,600 was part of ₹ 15,04,891 which was already added by the assessing officer and addition of ₹ 2,91,600 once again would amount to double addition. Therefore, this Tribunal is unable to uphold the addition made by the assessing officer to the extent of ₹ 2,91,600 on the basis of the cash withdrawals made by the assessee from the bank account. Accordingly, the order of the lower authority is set aside and the assessing officer is directed to delete the addition of ₹ 2,91,600 with regard to cash withdrawal from the bank as shown in the cash flow statement. - Decided against assessee in part Addition of foreign travel expenses - Held that:- It is an admitted fact that the assessee undertook foreign travel during the year under consideration. The source for the expenditure was not disclosed before the assessing officer. It is also not disclosed in the cash flow statement. The assessee is also not maintaining any books. In those circumstances, the CIT(A) has rightly made addition to the extent of ₹ 5 lakhs. In total the unexplained investment and expenditure to the tune of ₹ 33,75,410 is confirmed out of the addition of ₹ 36,67,010. The assessing officer is directed to delete the addition of ₹ 2,91,600. - Decided against revenue
|