2014 (1) TMI 875 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of unexplained gifts Held that - When the donor has no taxable income and was not filing any return of income, would clearly prove that he was not having sufficient means even to meet out the basic needs - there is no question of giving cash gift to the assessee in the assessment year - No evidence of having any savings in past have been filed - the assessee has no evidence to prove the creditworthiness of the donor and genuineness of the transaction in the matter - the assessee failed to prove all the basic ingredients of genuine gift in the matter - no sufficient evidences have been filed before the authorities to prove the genuine gift in the mater, it is clear that the gifts in the matter are not genuine and rather arranged affairs of the assessee. The assessee failed to prove the occasion of the gift and the creditworthiness of the donor - Genuineness of the gift is also not proved The decision in CIT Vs Shri Durga Prasad More 1971 (8) TMI 17 - SUPREME Court and Smt. Sumati Dayal Vs CIT 1995 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court followed - the assessee has failed to prove the genuine gift in the mater - it is a case of no evidence to prove creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the gift Decided against Assessee. Addition on account of unexplained cash Held that - The assessee has not filed copy of acknowledgement of filing of return of income for the assessment year 2006-07 to show the balance sheet if was filed with the revenue authorities along with the return of income - No evidence was furnished in this regard before the AO - there is no evidence to prove availability of cash in hand of ₹ 32,000 with the assessee as on 01.04.2006 - In the absence of any documentary evidence and that the claim is made for the first time at the assessment stage would clearly reveal that the explanation of the assessee is afterthought and concocted Decided against Assessee. Addition towards household withdrawals Held that - There was no justification to sustain the addition - The AO has not given any basis as to how the household expenses shown by the assessee were not sufficient to meet out her day-to-day requirement - the AO was not justified in estimating the household expenses at a higher figure Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Addition of unexplained gift of Rs. 3,50,000.
2. Addition of unexplained cash of Rs. 25,000.
3. Addition of household withdrawals of Rs. 16,000.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of unexplained gift of Rs. 3,50,000
The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 3,50,000 as unexplained gift received from her father. The Assessing Officer (AO) required the donor to be produced for examination, but the donor was not produced. The donor's letter stating the gift was not supported by evidence, and full donor details were lacking. The AO treated the gift as unexplained under section 68 of the IT Act. The appellate stage saw the donor produced, but he failed to satisfactorily explain the source of the cash gift. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, stating lack of evidence for creditworthiness and genuineness of the gift. The Tribunal concurred, noting absence of a gift deed, failure to establish source of gift, and lack of evidence regarding donor's financial capacity. The Tribunal found the donor's income non-taxable, indicating insufficient means to gift Rs. 3,50,000. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing failure to prove genuine gift.

Issue 2: Addition of unexplained cash of Rs. 25,000
The AO added Rs. 25,000 as unexplained cash, differing from the assessee's claimed cash in hand. The Tribunal found the assessee's evidence lacking, with no proof of cash availability on the specified date. The balance sheet showing cash in hand was filed at the assessment stage without supporting documents, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on this ground.

Issue 3: Addition of household withdrawals of Rs. 16,000
The AO added Rs. 16,000 towards household withdrawals, estimating higher expenses than shown by the assessee. However, the Tribunal found no basis for the AO's estimation and overturned the addition, stating insufficient reasoning for the higher estimate. The addition was deleted, and the appeal on this ground was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, dismissing the addition of unexplained gift and unexplained cash while allowing the appeal on the addition of household withdrawals.