2018 (6) TMI 276 - AT - Income Tax

Additions made on account of gifts found in survey - Held that - In none of the gift deeds/declarations the assessee was involved either as a donor or as a donee - under the circumstances where the donees as well as the donors were identified and even responded to the verification process by the AO, the addition of the gifts amounting to ₹ 72,13,000/- in the hands of the assessee is unwarranted and without any basis - thus revenue failed to prove that money either belonged to the assessee or had come to the assessee after being gifted by the donee - AO directed to delete the addition. Additions on account of unexplained stock of gold found in survey - Held that - AO has not correctly understood the issue and made the addition on wrong appreciation of facts - AO confused the stock of 8862.18 gms and 5925.37 gms i.e. 5935.37 gms were found physically during the course of survey and 8862.18 gms was as per the computer print out at the time of survey as belonging to the customers - CIT(A) has taken a correct view of the matter by into the stock records , reconciliation etc and thus deleted the addition - we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) and thus addition is deleted. - Decided against revenue

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of ?72,13,000 on account of gifts.
2. Deletion of addition of ?54,76,827 on account of unexplained stock of gold.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of ?72,13,000 on account of gifts:

The primary issue in the assessee's appeal was the confirmation of the addition of ?72,13,000 by the CIT(A) as made by the AO on account of gifts. The facts reveal that during a survey conducted on 23.11.2004, gift declarations/deeds from various donors were found at the assessee's premises. The AO issued show cause notices and summons to the donors, but the responses were either non-existent or inadequate. Consequently, the AO added the amount as unexplained income. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, reasoning that the onus was on the assessee to prove the transactions were not related to him since the documents were found on his premises. The CIT(A) referenced the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs Durga Prasad More and Sumati Dayal vs CIT, emphasizing the need to consider surrounding circumstances and human probabilities.

However, the ITAT found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including names and addresses of donees and donors, who were income tax assessees. The AO had issued summons u/s. 131, and the donees had responded with necessary documents. The ITAT concluded that the addition was unwarranted as the Revenue failed to prove that the money belonged to the assessee or was received by him. Thus, the ITAT directed the AO to delete the addition.

2. Deletion of addition of ?54,76,827 on account of unexplained stock of gold:

In the Revenue's appeal, the issue was the deletion of an addition of ?54,76,827 by the CIT(A) on account of unexplained stock of gold. During the survey, the AO found a discrepancy in the stock of gold, with 8862.18 gms recorded as belonging to customers but only 5935.37 gms physically found. The AO added the value of the alleged unexplained stock to the assessee's income, claiming the reconciliation provided by the assessee was incorrect.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the AO had taken the wrong stock figure and failed to properly verify the inventories and statements recorded during the survey. The CIT(A) found that the actual discrepancy was 5935.37 gms, not 8862.18 gms, and that the stock belonged to customers, as corroborated by statements from third parties. The CIT(A) concluded that the AO's findings were not substantiated by evidence.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the AO had confused the stock figures and failed to appreciate the reconciliation provided by the assessee. The ITAT found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s well-reasoned order based on correct appreciation of facts.

Conclusion:

The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the deletion of the ?72,13,000 addition on account of gifts, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the deletion of the ?54,76,827 addition on account of unexplained stock of gold. The judgment emphasized the importance of substantiating additions with concrete evidence and correctly appreciating the facts on record.

← Previous Next →