1999 (2) TMI 672 - AT - Income Tax

Issues Involved:

1. Addition of unexplained cash u/s 69.
2. Addition on account of NRI gifts.
3. Addition of domestic gifts.
4. Addition of unexplained cash credits.
5. Addition of undisclosed investment in properties u/s 69B.
6. Addition of undisclosed sale consideration.
7. Addition of alleged bogus expenses.
8. Addition of unexplained investment in the clinic.
9. Addition of alleged commission receipts.
10. Addition of alleged cash payment.
11. Addition towards alleged undisclosed professional receipts.
12. Addition of capital gains.

Summary:

1. Addition of unexplained cash u/s 69:
The AO made an addition of Rs. 1,24,360 u/s 69 as unexplained cash. The appellant argued that the cash books were updated based on the seized patients' registers. The Tribunal deleted the addition, agreeing with the appellant's explanation and noting the absence of evidence requiring the appellant to prove the entries.

2. Addition on account of NRI gifts:
The AO added Rs. 4,06,080 for NRI gifts, suspecting them as a mode of converting black money into white. The Tribunal sustained the addition, noting the similarities in the donors' letters and the lack of credible evidence supporting the gifts' genuineness.

3. Addition of domestic gifts:
The AO added Rs. 1,57,456 for domestic gifts. The Tribunal sustained Rs. 37,500 related to NRI gifts erroneously included as domestic gifts and deleted the remaining Rs. 1,19,956, citing the lack of new material seized during the search and the small amounts involved.

4. Addition of unexplained cash credits:
The AO added Rs. 82,876 for unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal deleted the addition, finding no suspicious features and applying the ratio of the decision in Sunder Agencies.

5. Addition of undisclosed investment in properties u/s 69B:
The AO added Rs. 16,09,166 for undisclosed investment in properties. The Tribunal deleted the addition, noting the lack of comparable sale instances and accepting the appellant's explanation for the low cost of acquisition.

6. Addition of undisclosed sale consideration:
The AO added Rs. 3,72,520 as undisclosed sale consideration. The Tribunal deleted the addition, finding no evidence of receipt of additional sale consideration and noting the transaction was with the appellant's own HUF.

7. Addition of alleged bogus expenses:
The AO made ad hoc additions of Rs. 50,000 each for three years for alleged bogus expenses. The Tribunal deleted the additions, noting the lack of specific evidence linking the blank vouchers to inflated expenses.

8. Addition of unexplained investment in the clinic:
The AO added Rs. 15,300 for unexplained investment in the clinic. The Tribunal deleted the addition, considering the small amount involved and the corresponding deduction for the expenditure incurred.

9. Addition of alleged commission receipts:
The AO added Rs. 2,42,870 for alleged commission receipts. The Tribunal sustained the addition, finding no convincing explanation from the appellant and noting the entries related to the appellant.

10. Addition of alleged cash payment:
The AO added Rs. 63,591 for alleged cash payments. The Tribunal deleted the addition, inferring the expenditure was incurred from unrecorded commission receipts.

11. Addition towards alleged undisclosed professional receipts:
The AO added Rs. 1,24,00,866 for undisclosed professional receipts. The Tribunal deleted the addition, finding no basis for the estimation and noting the excess cash declared by the appellant covered any omissions.

12. Addition of capital gains:
The AO added Rs. 11,59,250 for capital gains, claiming the property belonged to the appellant. The Tribunal deleted the addition, accepting the explanation that the property belonged to the HUF and noting the funds for acquisition flowed from the HUF.

← Previous Next →