9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Explanation of credit of Rs. 10,000 in the name of an employee, source of the credit, satisfaction of onus of proving the genuineness of the credit. Analysis: The case involved a credit of Rs. 10,000 in the name of an employee, Shri Shanmugham, which was questioned by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) as income from undisclosed sources. Shri Shanmugham claimed that the amount came from selling a house property with his brothers, where he received Rs. 8,000, out of which he advanced Rs. 6,000 as a loan to his brother. The ITO rejected this explanation, adding the entire Rs. 10,000 as the appellant's income. The appellant appealed to the Tribunal, arguing that Shanmugham had the means to advance the sum and had provided satisfactory evidence. The departmental representative contended that the source of the credit was not explained and the lack of interest received indicated the credit was not genuine. The Tribunal noted that the house sale involving Shanmugham and his brothers was not disputed, with Shanmugham admitting to advancing Rs. 6,000 to the appellant as a loan. The appellant's balance sheet showed the loan due to creditors, including the amount from Shanmugham. Shanmugham, an Assistant Manager, had the means to advance the sum, as evidenced by his salary and the explained motive for depositing Rs. 10,000 in the appellant's firm to start a cycle business. The departmental representative's argument about the lack of interest was countered by evidence of interest credited to Shanmugham's account in subsequent years. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the appellant had satisfactorily proven the genuineness of the credit, as Shanmugham's motive and means were established, and the addition of Rs. 10,000 as income from undisclosed sources was unjustified. Therefore, the Tribunal ordered the deletion of the Rs. 10,000 addition, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.
|
