2010 (8) TMI 740 - HC - Income Tax

Undisclosed income - gifts received by the assessee-firm from NRIs - Applying the previous year s gross profit rate of 4.39 per cent. to the current year it was noticed that the gross profit of the assessee would have been 62.57 lakhs as against the declared gross profit of 41.26 lakhs giving a difference of 21.31 lakhs - Held that - No plausible explanation had been furnished by the assessee for lower gross profit in the current year and the amount of alleged gifts amounting to 22, 01, 000 was almost equal to the lower gross profit declared. The trading results of 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.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of unexplained NRI gifts in the context of income tax assessment for a firm.

Analysis:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the treatment of gifts received from NRIs by partners of a firm. The Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained NRI gifts. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal held that the deposits in the partners' capital accounts should be treated as their income, not the firm's income. The Revenue contended that the gifts were not genuine and represented unexplained income of the firm. The partners' relationship with the NRIs making the gifts was questioned, and it was argued that the gifts were merely an arrangement to bring back undisclosed profits. The court considered various judgments cited by both parties, emphasizing the distinction between income of partners and the firm.

The Assessing Officer concluded that the gifts were not genuine based on the lack of relationship between the donors and the partners. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal disagreed, stating that even if the gifts were not genuine, no addition in the firm's hands could be made. The court noted that each case's facts and circumstances determine whether unexplained credit entries should be added to the firm's or partner's income. It highlighted that a partner's separate income may not always be taxed in the firm's hands, especially if a colorable device is used to evade tax.

In this case, the Assessing Officer found discrepancies in the declared gross profits and the alleged gifts received by the partners. The court upheld the Assessing Officer's findings, stating that the alleged gifts were the undisclosed income of the firm. The judgments cited by the assessee were deemed irrelevant as they were based on different factual scenarios. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, setting aside the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The appeal was disposed of, affirming the addition of the gifts as undisclosed income of the firm.