9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 14 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained money u/s. 69A - assessee has not explained the source of money received in the year 2009-10 - Held that - The assessee failed to bring on record any evidence to prove the findings of fact recorded by the lower authorities. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the CIT(A) was right in confirming addition made by the AO towards money received from Vishesh Entertainment Ltd as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. We do not find any error or infirmity in the order of CIT(A). Hence, we are inclined to uphold the finding of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of ?2.85 crores as 'Unexplained money' under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Genuineness of the transaction and source of funds. 3. Creditworthiness of the source of funds. Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of ?2.85 crores as 'Unexplained money' under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The assessee challenged the addition of ?2.85 crores made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO observed that the assessee, a non-resident, had credited ?2.85 crores in his NRO SB Account during the financial year 2011-12. The assessee claimed this amount was returned by a film producer, Mr. Mahesh Bhatt, which he had lent in 2004. However, the AO was not satisfied with the explanation and reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the Act, issuing a notice under Section 148. Despite the assessee's explanation and submission of relevant documents, the AO concluded that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and source of the funds, thus making the addition under Section 69A. 2. Genuineness of the transaction and source of funds: The assessee contended that the amount was a refund from Vishesh Entertainment Ltd for an advance given to Mr. Mahesh Bhatt for producing a film. The funds were claimed to have originated from Sohail Khan Productions, Inc., USA, which in turn received the funds from Telegroup Inc., a subsidiary of Sohail Khan Productions, Inc. The AO conducted enquiries with the US tax authorities, which revealed that Sohail Khan Productions, Inc. was inactive and had not filed any tax returns. The AO concluded that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the transactions and the source of funds. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, noting that the assessee relied on self-generated evidence, such as an affidavit, which was insufficient to prove the genuineness of the transactions. 3. Creditworthiness of the source of funds: The assessee argued that he need not prove the creditworthiness of the source of the source of funds. However, the AO and CIT(A) found that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of Sohail Khan Productions, Inc. The US tax authorities confirmed that the company was inactive and had not reported any income to support the transfer of USD 7,50,000 to the assessee. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal concluded that the assessee did not discharge the onus of proving the creditworthiness of the original source of money. Mere filing of an affidavit was deemed insufficient to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the findings of the lower authorities, confirming the addition of ?2.85 crores as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's arguments and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness and source of the funds. The order was pronounced in the open court on 09th March, 2018.
|
