9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of gifts received as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Addition for low household withdrawals. 3. Disallowance of depreciation claim. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of Gifts Received as Unexplained Cash Credit under Section 68: The primary issue was whether the gifts totaling Rs. 76,75,000 received by the assessee from 15 different persons were genuine. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued show-cause notices and recorded statements from 10 out of the 15 donors under Section 131. The AO concluded that the gifts were not genuine due to the lack of relationship or love and affection between the assessee and the donors, treating the sum as bogus and unexplained under Section 68. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, confirming the addition as unexplained cash credit. The assessee argued that the donors had confirmed the gifts, provided their accounts, and were regular assessees. The assessee relied on various case laws, including *Murlidhar Lahorimal vs. CIT* and *Dy. CIT vs. Rohini Builders*, to argue that the onus was on the AO to prove the gifts were not genuine. The Tribunal noted that the identity of the donors was established, but the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions were not sufficiently proved for five donors who did not appear. The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 26,25,000 for the five donors and Rs. 5,00,000 for Faruk Mohmad H. Ghaniwala, whose PAN was not provided. The remaining additions were deleted, directing the AO to take action against the donors in their respective assessment years. 2. Addition for Low Household Withdrawals: The AO added Rs. 52,000, estimating household expenses at Rs. 1,20,000 against the assessee's withdrawal of Rs. 68,000. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, noting that the assessee maintained two residential premises and had various expenses, making the AO's estimate reasonable. The Tribunal agreed with the AO and CIT(A), confirming the addition of Rs. 52,000 due to insufficient withdrawals to cover household expenses. 3. Disallowance of Depreciation Claim: The AO disallowed the depreciation claim of Rs. 3,38,442 due to the assessee's inability to produce bills for new assets purchased, allegedly lost in a flood. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, noting the lack of evidence such as FIR, insurance claims, or duplicate bills. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the disallowance of the depreciation claim, as the assessee failed to provide adequate evidence. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed. Additions related to unexplained gifts were partly upheld and partly deleted, with directions for further action against donors. Additions for low household withdrawals and disallowance of depreciation were confirmed.
|
