9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 1533 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained deposits - Held that - The said transaction is a normal business transaction of hire purchase of a vehicle - The payment was received from one in instalments against the hire purchase agreement, which was furnished by the assessee - A further sum was also received from two parties for purchase of vehicle but the transaction could not be materialed - The amount was returned through account payee cheque - The above transactions were duly confirmed by the persons, their income tax returns and bank statements were also filed by the assessee - Decided against the Revenue. Unexplained capital addition - Held that - The capital has been introduced by way of loan from partners and gift received - Only confirmation from lenders/ donors will not be a sufficient proof of the transactions - It is the onus of the assessee to prove the genuineness of the capital introduced in the firm - The creditworthiness of the lenders/ donor has not been properly examined - The issue has been restored for fresh adjudication by AO.
Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Rule 46A. 2. Unexplained deposits of Rs. 13,98,065/-. 3. Unexplained capital addition of Rs. 4,00,000/-. 4. Unexplained deposits of Rs. 17,30,000/-. Detailed Analysis: 1. Violation of Rule 46A: The Revenue raised a ground regarding the violation of Rule 46A, alleging that the assessee submitted additional documents before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] without proper procedure. However, it was noted that the CIT(A) had remanded these documents to the Assessing Officer (AO) and obtained a remand report. The CIT(A) also obtained a rejoinder from the assessee before adjudicating the issue. The Tribunal found no violation of Rule 46A as the proper procedure was followed, and the Revenue could not provide a cogent reply to substantiate the violation. Consequently, this ground was dismissed. 2. Unexplained Deposits of Rs. 13,98,065/-: - Surinder Kumar (Rs. 9,98,065/-): The assessee explained that Rs. 5,98,065/- was received in installments against hire purchase agreements, and Rs. 4,00,000/- was an advance for a vehicle purchase that was later returned. The CIT(A) accepted these explanations, noting that the transactions were business-related, not loans. The CIT(A) found the identity and creditworthiness of Surinder Kumar to be proven, supported by his income tax return and bank statement. The addition of Rs. 9,98,065/- was deleted. - Prahlad Yadav (Rs. 4,00,000/-): The assessee claimed this amount was an advance for a vehicle purchase, later repaid. The CIT(A) accepted this explanation, supported by confirmations, income tax returns, and bank statements, and deleted the addition. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity or illegality in the order. 3. Unexplained Capital Addition of Rs. 4,00,000/-: - Veena Rani (Rs. 3,00,000/-): The AO added this amount as unexplained capital, questioning the creditworthiness of the lender, Shikha Choudhary. The CIT(A) found that the lender's income tax returns and bank statements were on record, suggesting sufficient creditworthiness. The CIT(A) opined that the AO should have made inquiries directly with the lender if in doubt. - Ram Pyari (Rs. 1,00,000/-): The AO added this amount as unexplained capital, questioning the creditworthiness of the donor, Om Parkash. The CIT(A) found that the donor's income tax returns and bank statements were on record, suggesting sufficient creditworthiness. The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A), stating that the onus was on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the capital introduced. The issue was remitted to the AO for fresh examination of the creditworthiness of the transactions. 4. Unexplained Deposits of Rs. 17,30,000/-: - BR Financiers (Rs. 13,00,000/-): The AO added this amount as unexplained, questioning the creditworthiness of the depositor. The CIT(A) found that BR Financiers was a reputable concern with regular business transactions with the assessee. The Tribunal noted an anomaly in the findings of the AO and CIT(A) and remitted the issue to the AO for fresh examination. - Other Depositors (Rs. 4,30,000/-): - OM Parkash (Rs. 60,000/-): The CIT(A) found the deposit sufficiently explained, supported by past assessments and land holdings. The Tribunal upheld this finding. - Ram Devi (Rs. 60,000/-), Ishwar Devi (Rs. 1,00,000/-), Subhash Kumar (Rs. 60,000/-): The CIT(A) noted these deposits were carried forward from past years and accepted by the AO previously. The Tribunal disagreed, stating the onus was on the assessee to prove the creditworthiness of the deposits and remitted the issue to the AO for fresh examination. - Sanjay Malhotra (Rs. 1,50,000/-): The CIT(A) found the deposit sufficiently explained, supported by the depositor's income tax returns and bank statements. The Tribunal upheld this finding. Conclusion: The appeal filed by the Revenue was partly allowed, with certain issues remitted to the AO for fresh examination. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings on some deposits while remitting others for further scrutiny.
|
