9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 112 - HC - Income TaxAddition of unexplained cash credits - Held that - Section 68 of the Act stipulates that, where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. In the present case, the assessee is a partnership firm. The cash credits of ₹ 94,46,903/- have been explained by the firm as capital introduced by Sri Ch.Rajendra Kumar. If Sri Ch.Rajendra Kumar was unable to explain the source of funds, for his investment as capital in the partnership firm, the Assessing Officer would have been justified in adding these unexplained cash credits to the income of Sri Ch.Rajendra Kumar in his individual assessment. That, however, did not justify adding these cash credits of ₹ 90,46,903/- to the income of the firm as these credits have been explained by the firm as having been introduced as capital by Sri Ch.Rajendra Kumar, a partner.
Issues: Appeal against Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order for assessment year 2006-07 regarding unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
Analysis: The appeal was made under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee, a partnership firm, initially declared a loss of &8377; 24,11,385/-, but the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act assessed the income at &8377; 82,24,116/-. The Tribunal had set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority. The Assessing Authority found that a significant sum was credited to the partner's capital account without satisfactory explanation of the source. Despite multiple opportunities, the assessee failed to provide sufficient details regarding the funds deposited into the partner's account, leading to the addition of the amount under Section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credits. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the addition, noting that the total deposits in the partner's bank account exceeded his gross receipts, indicating a lack of explanation for the credits to the partner's capital account. However, the Tribunal, in the subsequent order, observed that the onus was on the partner to prove the source of funds in his assessment, not on the partnership firm. The Tribunal accepted the genuineness of the credits and deleted the additions made by the Assessing Authority. The Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department argued that the partner had not satisfactorily explained the source of funds for the unexplained cash credits, justifying their addition to the firm's income. However, Section 68 of the Act specifies that unexplained sums may be charged to income tax if not satisfactorily explained by the assessee. In this case, the firm had explained the cash credits as capital introduced by the partner, and the onus was on the partner to explain the source of funds in his individual assessment, not on the firm. The High Court found no legal infirmity in the Tribunal's order and no substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 260-A of the Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, along with any pending miscellaneous petitions, with no order as to costs.
|
