2016 (12) TMI 299 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s.69 - assessee has not proved the source of investment satisfactorily - assessee failure to prove with cogent evidence that amount of cash has been gifted by her wife - Held that - It is an undisputed fact that the wife of the assessee Smt. Kavita D. Gupta is an income-tax assessee from 2000-01 onwards. The copies of the returns of income filed by her for different assessment years have been filed in the paper book. The cumulative capital of Smt. Kavita D. Gupta is more than ₹ 9 lakhs. The various documents filed by the assessee substantiating the credit worthiness of Smt. Kavita D. Gupta cannot be disbelieved under the facts and circumstances of the case. When Smt. Kavita D. Gupta had filed the details of her income-tax returns along with PAN and confirmation letter, the Assessing Officer should have summoned her. Since the assessee is a lady with a mentally challenged child and is doing seasonal business and has produced the purchase and sale bills etc. the Assessing Officer under the facts of the present case should not have doubted the business of the wife of the assessee merely on the ground that she has not produce the shop license. So far as the objection of the Assessing Officer that money has not routed through banking channel although the wife of the assessee is maintaining a bank account is concerned, this in my opinion should not be a ground under the facts and circumstances of the case to disbelieve the gift. Since the assessee in the instant case has substantiated the identity and credit worthiness of the donor and the genuineness of the transaction, therefore, the CIT(A) in my opinion should not have confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s.69 of the I.T. Act to the extent of ₹ 3 lakhs. Thus the lower authorities should not have disbelieved the gift received by the assessee from his wife for purchase of the agricultural land in question

Issues:
1. Addition of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Confirmation of gift amount received from wife for purchase of agricultural land.
3. Dispute regarding credit worthiness of the donor.
4. Applicability of precedents in determining genuineness of cash credit.
5. Assessment of the capacity of the donor to provide the gift amount.
6. Justification of the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 69.
7. Adequacy of evidence and documentation provided by the assessee to prove the source of investment.

Issue 1: Addition of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act:
The case involved an appeal against the addition of a certain amount as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer. The assessee had purchased agricultural land and claimed to have received a cash gift from his wife for the investment. However, the Assessing Officer disbelieved the credit worthiness of the donor, leading to the addition. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, which was challenged in the appeal before the Tribunal.

Issue 2: Confirmation of gift amount received from wife for purchase of agricultural land:
The primary contention revolved around the confirmation of the gift amount received from the wife of the assessee for the purchase of the agricultural land. The assessee provided various documents, including income-tax returns, PAN number, and an affidavit regarding the gift. However, the Assessing Officer raised doubts regarding the source and credit worthiness of the donor, leading to the addition under section 69.

Issue 3: Dispute regarding credit worthiness of the donor:
The dispute also centered on the credit worthiness of the donor, the wife of the assessee, who had allegedly provided the cash gift. The Assessing Officer questioned the lack of books of account, absence of a shop license, and non-routing of money through a banking channel, despite the donor maintaining a bank account. This raised suspicions about the genuineness of the transaction and the capacity of the donor to provide the gift amount.

Issue 4: Applicability of precedents in determining genuineness of cash credit:
Both sides cited legal precedents to support their arguments. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasizing that mere suspicion does not warrant an addition. In contrast, the Ld. Departmental Representative relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court regarding the necessity of proving credit worthiness in cases of cash credits.

Issue 5: Assessment of the capacity of the donor to provide the gift amount:
The Tribunal assessed the capacity of the donor, considering the nature of the donor's business, the absence of books of account due to low turnover, and the use of presumptive tax provisions. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of summoning the donor for recording a statement to verify the genuineness of the transaction.

Issue 6: Justification of the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 69:
The Assessing Officer's addition under section 69 was based on doubts regarding the source and credit worthiness of the donor, leading to the conclusion that the gifted amount actually belonged to the assessee. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, which was subsequently challenged in the appeal before the Tribunal.

Issue 7: Adequacy of evidence and documentation provided by the assessee to prove the source of investment:
The Tribunal reviewed the evidence and documentation provided by the assessee to prove the source of investment, including the cash gift from the donor. The Tribunal found merit in the arguments presented by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, emphasizing the credibility of the donor and the genuineness of the transaction based on the documents submitted.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both sides, the Tribunal's assessment, and the final decision regarding the addition of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act.

← Previous Next →