9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 879 - AT - Income TaxUnaccounted gifts - Held that - A clear and categorical finding has been given by CIT(A) that the gift was stated to be made by an unrelated donor of the assessee (claimed to be cousin sister) but no evidence of relationship is brought on record. He has also noted that in Punjabis, it is considered an immorality to take money from sister. He has also noted that there was no relationship between the assessee and the donor and no occasion was also specified for making the gifts. He has also given a finding that no Evidence has been furnished during appeal proceeding to prove creditworthiness of the alleged donor. Hence, we find that the decision of CIT(A) is on various basis such as, no relationship between the donor and the assessee donnee and even if there is relation, then it is considered immorality to take money from sister as has been claimed in the present case. The third basis is that there is no occasion also for making the gift. The fourth basis is that the creditworthiness of the donor is not established. Considering all these facts, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue. - Decided against assessee. Unaccounted investment - Held that - A categorical finding has been given by CIT(A) that during assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to establish the source of fund in the hands of his wife but no evidence of availability of funds in the hands of his wife was provided and therefore, the claim of the assessee that a double addition has been made is unsubstantiated. CIT(A) has given a categorical finding that the assessee has brought no evidence on record to show that investment was indeed made by his wife out of her funds because no funds are available with wife of the assessee. She is only a name lender to the transaction and on this basis, the addition was made substantive in hands of the assessee and he confirmed the same. Thus find no reason to interfere in the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue in assessment year 2005-06 also.- Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Sustaining the addition made by the AO while disbelieving the genuineness of the gifts received by the assessee. 2. Sustaining the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of gifts received from the assessee's sister. 3. Discharging the primary onus of establishing the genuineness of the gift. 4. Sustaining the additions made under Section 68. 5. Confirming the "protective assessment" as "substantive assessment" towards Rs. 8,73,000/- as undisclosed investment in immovable property. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Sustaining the addition made by the AO while disbelieving the genuineness of the gifts received by the assessee The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO by disbelieving the genuineness of the gifts without any incriminating material or evidence discovered during the search operations. The CIT(A) deleted certain other additions made by the AO where no incriminating material was discovered during the search operation. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) provided a clear and categorical finding that the gift was stated to be made by an unrelated donor to the assessee, with no evidence of relationship brought on record. The CIT(A) noted that in Punjabis, it is considered immoral to take money from a sister, and no occasion was specified for making the gifts. The creditworthiness of the donor was not established. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere. Issue 2: Sustaining the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of gifts received from the assessee's sister The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of gifts received from his sister, despite credible evidence being placed on record establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the gifts. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) found no evidence of relationship between the assessee and the donor, no occasion for making the gifts, and no proof of the donor's creditworthiness. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s categorical findings and upheld the decision, declining to interfere. Issue 3: Discharging the primary onus of establishing the genuineness of the gift The assessee argued that he had discharged his primary onus of establishing the genuineness of the gift by filing requisite evidence and that the gift was received from a relative. The CIT(A) found that the assessee failed to provide evidence of the relationship, occasion, and the donor's creditworthiness. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere. Issue 4: Sustaining the additions made under Section 68 The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the additions made under Section 68, resting his decisions on unsound reasons. The CIT(A) found that the gift was not genuine, as there was no relationship between the assessee and the donor, no occasion for the gift, and no evidence of the donor's creditworthiness. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere. Issue 5: Confirming the "protective assessment" as "substantive assessment" towards Rs. 8,73,000/- as undisclosed investment in immovable property The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the "protective assessment" as "substantive assessment" towards Rs. 8,73,000/- as undisclosed investment in immovable property without appreciating the true facts and circumstances. The CIT(A) found that the assessee failed to establish the source of funds in the hands of his wife and brought no evidence to show that the investment was made by his wife out of her funds. The CIT(A) treated the addition as substantive in the hands of the assessee and confirmed it. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed all three appeals of the assessee, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all issues. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) provided clear and categorical findings on the lack of relationship, occasion, and creditworthiness of the donor, as well as the failure to establish the source of funds for the investment in immovable property.
|
