9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee's explanation regarding the possession of funds collected by the building fund committee of Gurudwara Gurusing Sabha, Shrirampur, is correct. 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 25,000 as an unexplained deposit by the assessee's daughter Mrs. Priya Jaggi is justified. 3. Whether the addition of Rs. 30,000 as deposits by Balvantsing Juneja and Nanaksing Chug is justified. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Funds Collected by the Building Fund Committee of Gurudwara Gurusing Sabha: The assessee claimed that Rs. 1,10,000 found during the search belonged to the Gurudwara Gurusing Sabha Building Fund Committee. Evidence included affidavits from trustees, a list of donors, and statements recorded from members of the committee. The assessee argued that the funds were collected from various villages and deposited with him as the chairman of the committee. The ITO rejected this explanation, considering it an afterthought, and doubted the credibility of the evidence due to inconsistencies and the timing of the claims. The Tribunal scrutinized the evidence, noting that while there were some contradictions, the overall explanation was reasonable and convincing. The Tribunal emphasized that explanations should not be outrightly rejected if they contain elements of truth. Given the corroborative evidence from the trustees and the registration of the Gurudwara under section 12A of the IT Act, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation and deleted the addition of Rs. 1,10,000. 2. Addition of Rs. 25,000 as Unexplained Deposit by Mrs. Priya Jaggi: The assessee claimed that Rs. 25,000 found during the search was a deposit from his daughter, Mrs. Priya Jaggi, who confirmed this in a letter and on oath. The ITO rejected this explanation, citing inconsistencies in the statements and the lack of immediate disclosure during the search. The Tribunal considered the evidence, including Mrs. Jaggi's financial position and her confirmation on oath. The Tribunal noted that minor contradictions in witness statements do not necessarily discredit the entire story. The Tribunal found the explanation reasonable and accepted it, deleting the addition of Rs. 25,000. 3. Addition of Rs. 30,000 as Deposits by Balvantsing Juneja and Nanaksing Chug: The assessee claimed that Rs. 30,000 found during the search was deposited by two friends, Balvantsing Juneja and Nanaksing Chug, who confirmed these deposits. The ITO rejected this explanation, questioning the credibility of the depositors and the timing of the claims. The Tribunal examined the evidence, including bank statements and confirmations from the depositors. The Tribunal found the explanations plausible and noted that the evidence supported the assessee's version. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 30,000. Separate Judgments: The Tribunal's decision included a dissenting opinion from one member, who disagreed with the majority's acceptance of the explanations provided by the assessee. The dissenting member emphasized the inconsistencies and the timing of the explanations, arguing that the explanations were not convincing and should be rejected. However, the majority opinion prevailed, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee, with the additions being deleted.
|
