2012 (7) TMI 267 - AT - Income Tax

Additions on account of Gift - Held that - Considering affidavits filed by the donors, the assessee has discharged the onus cast on him., but the revenue has failed to bring relevant material on record to dislodge the deposition made in the affidavits - decided in favour of assessee. Addition on account of cash deposits made with bank - Held that - The assessee has withdrawn money from bank account, where his business receipts were credited and deposited in another bank account. There is small gap of time in the withdrawal and deposits of such amounts, thus,containing withdrawal and deposits of amounts from the relevant bank accounts, it is evident that no findings can be sustained on the ground of gap of one month, between withdrawal and deposit in such transactions - decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of gifts received from relatives as unaccounted money.
2. Addition of cash deposit in UCO Bank.

Issue 1: Addition of gifts received from relatives as unaccounted money

The appeal was filed against the order confirming the additions of gifts received from relatives. The assessee contended that the gifts were from known donors, supported by affidavits explaining the source. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, considering the gifts as accommodation entries for unaccounted money. The affidavits from donors lacked specific dates of gifts. The affidavits confirmed gifts made during a specific period. The tribunal referred to the evidentiary value of affidavits as per the Supreme Court's decision. The tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus by submitting affidavits, and the revenue failed to provide material to challenge them. The ground of appeal was allowed based on the donors' affidavits and lack of contradictory evidence.

Issue 2: Addition of cash deposit in UCO Bank

The appeal challenged the addition of a cash deposit in UCO Bank. The AR argued that the deposit was from withdrawals and gifts received by the assessee. The CIT(A) noted a time lag between withdrawals and deposits, questioning the claim of business purposes for frequent cash transfers. The appellant failed to provide direct evidence supporting the source of the deposit. The CIT(A) justified the addition under section 69A of the Act. The tribunal observed a gap between withdrawals and deposits but found no conclusive evidence against the availability of cash from disclosed sources. The tribunal allowed the appeal, considering the explanation and relevant bank records provided by the assessee, which did not support the gap in transactions. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.

In conclusion, the tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on both issues, allowing the appeal against the additions of gifts received from relatives and the cash deposit in UCO Bank. The decision was based on the evidence presented by the assessee and the lack of substantial evidence provided by the revenue authorities to challenge the claims made by the assessee.