2017 (1) TMI 781 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s.68 - received of alleged gift given by father - Held that - Assessing Officer has merely stated that the father of the assessee had meagre income without bring on record any material in support of the issue. In my considered opinion, such a vague and unspecific and unsubstantiated observation has no value in the eyes of law. Therefore, considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case I find that the plausible explanation of the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer merely on the basis of suspicion and doubt and without bringing even an iota of material on record and even pointing out any inconsistency in the statement of Shri L. Anand Rao, father of the assessee recorded u/s.131 of the Act. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee vs CIT (1963 (3) TMI 47 - SUPREME COURT ), wherein, it was held that the department cannot by merely rejecting unreasonably a good explanation convert good proof into no proof. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained and the ld CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the same. Therefore, setaside the orders of lower authorities and delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Addition of ?4,56,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account of an alleged gift.
3. Adhoc disallowance of ?47,180/- by the Assessing Officer.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appeal was filed by the assessee 202 days late. The assessee submitted a condonation petition supported by an affidavit explaining the delay. The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay to be reasonable and noted that the Revenue did not object to the condonation. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for hearing.

2. Addition of ?4,56,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act:
The primary issue was whether the addition of ?4,56,000/- as unexplained income under Section 68 was justified. The assessee introduced fresh capital of ?4,56,000/- during the assessment year 2009-2010, claiming it was a cash gift from his father, Shri L. Anand Rao, who was an agriculturist. The Assessing Officer (AO) questioned the genuineness and capacity of the donor to make such a gift, noting the lack of a bank account and insufficient evidence of agricultural income.

Upon appeal, the CIT(A) referred the matter back to the AO for further verification. The AO's remand report highlighted inconsistencies and the lack of substantial evidence to prove the donor's capacity to gift the amount. The AO observed that the agricultural income certificate did not specify the relevant financial year, and the donor failed to provide adequate documentation of agricultural transactions and land ownership.

The assessee argued that the donor had sufficient agricultural income and provided supporting documents, including a certificate from the Tehsildar. However, the CIT(A) upheld the AO's addition, citing the lack of specific evidence for the relevant financial year and other discrepancies.

Before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that the issue was covered by a previous decision where affidavits and ownership evidence sufficed to prove creditworthiness. The Tribunal found that the AO failed to bring any material evidence to refute the donor's statement or the agricultural income certificate. The Tribunal concluded that the initial onus was discharged by the assessee and that the AO's rejection of the explanation was based on suspicion without substantive evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and deleted the addition of ?4,56,000/-.

3. Adhoc Disallowance of ?47,180/- by the Assessing Officer:
The second ground of appeal concerned the adhoc disallowance of ?47,180/-. The assessee did not make any serious arguments regarding this ground before the Tribunal. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed this ground for want of prosecution.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, deleted the addition of ?4,56,000/- under Section 68, and dismissed the ground concerning the adhoc disallowance of ?47,180/-. The order was pronounced in the open court on 10/01/2017.

← Previous Next →