9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Assessment of undisclosed income u/s 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 based on unexplained source of funds amounting to Rs. 20,000 deposited in the assessee's account.
Judgment Summary: Issue 1: Unexplained Source of Funds The case involved the assessment year 1965-66 where the assessee failed to explain the source of Rs. 20,000 deposited in the account of the company. The amount was claimed to be received by the lady from her father as a gift during her marriage in 1962. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) assessed the amount as income from other sources due to lack of evidence showing the continuous possession of the funds by the lady. The Tribunal upheld the decision stating that the burden of proof lay on the assessee to explain the source of the funds, which was not discharged. The Tribunal considered the lack of evidence regarding the utilization of the funds and concluded that the assessee failed to prove the source of the amount, leading to the rejection of the appeal. The Tribunal's decision was deemed reasonable based on the available evidence and the principles of burden of proof in such cases. Issue 2: Burden of Proof and Lack of Evidence The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing evidence to substantiate claims regarding the source of funds, especially in cases where undisclosed income is being assessed. The Tribunal highlighted the absence of concrete evidence such as bank accounts or documentation proving the loan transaction, the capacity of the lender, and the actual receipt of the loan. The Tribunal reiterated the principles established in previous cases regarding the burden of proof on the assessee to demonstrate the genuineness of transactions involving unexplained funds. The Tribunal concluded that the decision to assess the amount as undisclosed income was based on the lack of evidence presented by the assessee, and the Tribunal's assessment was considered valid and not perverse in law. Separate Judgment by Judge Sudhindra Mohan Guha Judge Sudhindra Mohan Guha concurred with the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the importance of evidence and the burden of proof in cases involving unexplained sources of funds. The judge agreed that the Tribunal's assessment was based on the available evidence and principles of law, and therefore, the decision was upheld. Each party was directed to bear its own costs in the matter. This judgment underscores the significance of providing concrete evidence to substantiate claims related to the source of funds, especially in cases where undisclosed income is being assessed. The burden of proof lies on the assessee to demonstrate the genuineness of transactions, and the lack of evidence can lead to adverse assessments by tax authorities.
|
