9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 6 lacs on account of unexplained cash credits u/s 68. 2. Addition of Rs. 49,241 on account of interest on the said cash credits. Summary: Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 6 lacs on account of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 6 lacs to the assessee's income, citing unexplained cash credits u/s 68. The credits were attributed to gifts from Gujarat agriculturists to minors of the assessee's family. The AO found the gifts non-genuine, noting that the donors were not related to the donees and had no personal bond. The AO concluded that the gifts were arranged through an intermediary, Shri Narendrabhai Patel, and were part of a systematic tax planning scheme. Consequently, the AO added the amount to the assessee's income. The CIT (Appeals) deleted the addition, accepting the identity of the creditors, the receipt of funds through bank drafts, and the assessment of gifts to gift-tax. The CIT (Appeals) held that the AO's rejection of the evidence was based on suspicion. The Tribunal, however, agreed with the AO that the gifts were not genuine, applying the test of human probabilities. The Tribunal noted that the donors had no personal relationship with the donees and the gifts were arranged by an intermediary. The Tribunal held that the entire affair was an arranged one and the evidences were created to give a semblance of genuineness. Issue 2: Addition of Rs. 49,241 on account of interest on the said cash credits Consequently, the AO disallowed the interest of Rs. 49,241 on these cash credits, which was upheld by the Tribunal. Separate Judgment by Judges: The Judicial Member (JM) initially accepted the alternative contention that the addition should be made in the hands of the minors' parents, not the assessee-firm, applying the Supreme Court's judgment in Smt. P.K. Noorjahan. However, the Accountant Member (AM) disagreed, holding that the AO rightly assessed the credits in the hands of the assessee-firm. The Third Member, agreeing with the AM, held that the AO's discretion was properly exercised under section 68, and the assessee-firm was rightly assessed for the credits. The appeal was decided in favor of the Revenue.
|
