2013 (9) TMI 966 - HC - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act Addition of amount of Rs. 20,05,000/- - proof of investment in shares Held that - no evidence about the distinctive share numbers or photocopy of share certificates was available, nor any evidence was led to establish that the shares were actually transferred in the name of the assessee. The burden was clearly on the assessee to explain the amount withdrawn by him, and to satisfy the AO - Merely on the basis of the bank account that also belonging to business concern one cannot conclude that the assessee has duly explained the source of the deposit specially when the assessee has not filed Wealth Tax return showing cash in hand amounting to Rs.20,20,000/- as on 31.3.1999 which was chargeable to Wealth Tax Decided against the Assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to addition of Rs.20,05,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2000-01.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of Rs.20,05,000 under Section 68 of the Act
The primary issue in this case revolved around the deletion of the addition of Rs.20,05,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal did not agree with the CIT (A)'s findings, which accepted the explanation that the amount was withdrawn for investment in shares. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden was on the assessee to prove the source of the funds and the investment made. It was noted that the assessee failed to provide crucial evidence, such as distinctive share numbers or photocopies of share certificates, to establish the transfer of shares in their name. The Tribunal highlighted that the onus was on the assessee to explain the source of the withdrawn amount, and the lack of essential documentation led to the dismissal of the appeal.

Issue 2: Burden of Proof and Compliance with Section 68
The Tribunal underscored the importance of the assessee satisfying the Assessing Officer regarding the source of the withdrawn amount, in compliance with Section 68 of the Act. It was observed that the appellant's reliance on a Supreme Court judgment was misplaced, as the facts of the present case did not align with the principles cited. The Tribunal reiterated that the findings were based on facts and did not give rise to substantial legal questions as framed in the appeal. The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO under Section 68, emphasizing the failure of the assessee to discharge the burden of proof adequately.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the Income Tax Appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision regarding the addition of Rs.20,05,000 under Section 68 of the Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of the assessee meeting the onus of proof and providing essential documentation to substantiate claims, ultimately emphasizing compliance with the legal provisions of the Income Tax Act.