TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 740X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee were, thus, rejected and the addition of ₹ 22,01,000 was treated as undisclosed income of the assessee. In view thereof, the alleged gifts received from NRIs by the partners were the undisclosed income of the assessee-firm in the facts and circumstances of the present case - substantial question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue. - ITA NO 86/03 - - - Dated:- 2-8-2010 - ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ. Judgment: Adarsh Kumar Goel J.- 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act ) against the order dated November 28, 2002 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench A , in I. T. A. No. 213/Chandi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee. The transaction could be gift if there was genuine love and affection, which was not established. Learned counsel for the Revenue referred to the finding recorded by the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) noticing the proceedings before the Assessing Officer that the amounts were received by the assessee-firm from NRIs. The NRIs who purportedly made the gifts were not produced. The partners in whose account the amount was credited were also not produced except three. The donors were strangers and had no relationship with the said partners. The partners were also not familiar to the NRIs who allegedly made the gifts. There was corresponding deposit in the accounts of the NRIs even before the gifts were made. The said gifts were me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 1. Sh. Sewa Singh 2,44,000 2. Sh. Parkash Singh 5,50,000 3. Sh. Ajit Singh 2,50,000 4. Sh. Parabjit Singh 1,00,000 5. Sh. Gajinder Singh 2,57,000 6. Sh. Sarabjit Singh 5,70,000 7. Sh. Jaswinder Singh 3,00,000 8. The Assessing Officer, after appreciating the evidence, had concluded that the gif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22,01,000 received by the assessee are nothing but the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. It may be mentioned here that this year the assessee has declared a gross profit rate of 2.90 per cent. as against 4.39 per cent. last year. The gross profit declared is ₹ 41.26 lakhs as against ₹ 57.17 lakhs declared last year. If the gross profit rate of 4.39 per cent. is adopted, the gross profit of the assessee this year should have been ₹ 62.57 lakhs as against the declared gross profit of ₹ 41.26 lakhs. Thus the assessee has declared less gross profit by ₹ 21.31 lakhs. The reasons advanced by the assessee for lower gross profit rate are not convincing. The assessee's partners have received alleged g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ord whether the assessee had employed a colourable device or whether the partner had unexplained income which was credited in the books of account of the assessee. It cannot always be held that merely because the entry in the capital account of the partner was identified as a source of undisclosed income, the firm was immune from being taxed, even where a colourable device was used by the firm by introducing its undisclosed income by way of deposit by a partner. 11. Now, adverting to the facts of the present case, a finding had been recorded by the Assessing Officer that in the previous year, the gross profit declared by the assessee was 4.39 per cent., i.e., ₹ 57.17 lakhs whereas it was 2.9 per cent. i.e. ₹ 41.26 lakhs in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
