9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 656 - AT - Income TaxForeign currency transaction - Sale of business in Finland - non evidence as to the bringing of approx. US 25,196/- to India from Finland which is equivalent to ₹ 10,58,225/- CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that - Before us the Assessee has filed fresh evidence in the form of bank statement showing that the Assessee has deposited sale proceeds of business of Euro 1,85,000 in the bank Nordea and the last instalment of 26,851 Euros was deposited on 11.4.2007. It was also submitted before us that the bank statement shows name of the Assessee s company As Oy Karhusuontie . The ld. AR was fair enough to say that this statement was not produced before the authorities below. It was also submitted that this statement consists of not only the deposits out of the sale but also the transfer of the money from the account of other family members. The ld. AR even though submitted this bank statement but has not given us any equivalent rupee so that the amount deposited be the Assessee could be co-related. We, therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play to both the parties set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore this issue to the file of the AO with the direction that the AO should re-examine this issue afresh. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. Loan from elder son - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - In view of the provisions of Sec. 68 the onus is on the Assessee to prove the identity, credit-worthiness of the parties and the genuineness to the transaction. In this case, we noted that the loan has been advanced by the elder son of the Assessee whose identity and genuineness of the transaction is not under doubt. The Assessee has explained the source of his elder son who was doing part-time job in Finland and helping family business and he was staying in Finland since childhood. He explained in his statement about the source but we also noted that there are cash deposits in the account of Shri Amit Bhatia to the extent of ₹ 30,000/-, ₹ 49,000/-, ₹ 45,000/- and ₹ 49,500/- and out of this, loan has been advanced to the Assessee. The source of these cash deposits is not available and even there is no plausible evidence in this regard. To that extent we confirm the addition of ₹ 1,73,500/-. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. Unexplained cash credit - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - The onus, lies on the Assessee to prove the identity and credit worthiness of the creditor. The ld. AR even though vehemently relied on the order of the CIT(A) but no cogent material or evidence was brought on record to disprove the finding of the AO that the dates of arrival of the loan creditor is different from the dates when the cash has been deposited in the bank account of the loan creditor. We noted that the CIT(A) without verifying and disproving this finding of the AO merely deleted the addition. Thus restore this issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction that the CIT(A) shall look into this issue afresh and verify whether the dates of arrival of Assessee s son in India are different from the dates when the cash has been deposited and whether the cash has been deposited in the account of Shri Atul Kumar Bhatia subsequent to the date of his arrival in India. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. Deposits in bank - realization of the travellers cheques - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - In Income Tax the onus lies on the Assessee, in case he makes a claim, to adduce the evidence to support his explanation. We do not agree with CIT(A) that the onus lies on the AO to write to the bank and procure the evidence. In case the Assessee was not having the evidence, the Assessee could have very well asked the AO to verify the transactions with the bank; whether the credit given to him is out of encashment of travellers cheque or not. We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) on this issue and restore this issue to the file of CIT(A) with the direction that CIT(A) shall re-decide this issue in accordance with law after giving proper and sufficient opportunity to the Assessee to adduce evidence on which the Assessee may rely.- Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. Unexplained investment - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - The addition which has been deleted by the CIT(A) in the appellate order for A.Y 2007-08 relates to A.Y 2007-08 though detail does not relate to A.Y 2006-07. During the course of proceedings for A.Y 2007-08 the Assessee has filed copy of bank statement dt. 10.3.2010 for the period 1.4.2007 to 30.4.2007 relating to Nordea bank but no copy of the bank statement was filed for the period relevant to the impugned assessment year. Although relates to 1,85,000 Euros but states that the residual tenure is transferred to the purchaser on 23.4.2007. The sale deed does not show that the Assessee has received any money during the impugned assessment year. It refers to sale brochure dt. 14.3.2007, 16.6.2006, 2.4.2007. If the money has arisen out of sale of the property, then, the sale deed should relate to the impugned period. As already set aside the order of CIT(A) and restored this issue to the file of CIT(A) with the direction that this ground be disposed off afresh after appreciating the evidence relating to the impugned assessment year not relating to A.Y 2007-08. Each assessment year is independent.- Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 11,18,500/- as unexplained cash credits for A.Y 2006-07. 2. Addition of Rs. 10,58,225/- as unexplained cash credits for A.Y 2007-08. 3. Addition of Rs. 6,02,500/- as unexplained loan from elder son for A.Y 2007-08. 4. Addition of Rs. 1,56,500/- as unexplained loan from second son for A.Y 2007-08. 5. Addition of Rs. 5,40,000/- as unexplained encashment of travelers' cheques for A.Y 2007-08. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of Rs. 11,18,500/- as unexplained cash credits for A.Y 2006-07: The Revenue contested the deletion of the addition of Rs. 11,18,500/- made by the AO. The CIT(A) deleted the addition by referring to the order for A.Y 2007-08. However, the Tribunal noted that each assessment year is independent and the facts for A.Y 2006-07 should be examined separately. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to re-examine the evidence relevant to A.Y 2006-07. The Tribunal emphasized that the source of the deposits made during the impugned assessment year must be explained for that specific year. 2. Addition of Rs. 10,58,225/- as unexplained cash credits for A.Y 2007-08: The AO added Rs. 10,58,225/- as unexplained cash credits, questioning the source of funds brought from Finland. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, accepting the assessee's explanation that the funds were from the sale of business in Finland. The Tribunal noted that fresh evidence in the form of a bank statement was presented, which was not before the authorities below. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the AO for re-examination, directing the AO to verify the bank statement and the source of funds. 3. Addition of Rs. 6,02,500/- as unexplained loan from elder son for A.Y 2007-08: The AO treated the loan from the elder son as non-genuine due to contradictory statements and unexplained cash deposits. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating the identity and genuineness of the transaction were established, and the creditworthiness of the son was explained. The Tribunal partially upheld the AO's view, confirming the addition of Rs. 1,73,500/- due to unexplained cash deposits in the son's account. The Tribunal allowed this ground partly. 4. Addition of Rs. 1,56,500/- as unexplained loan from second son for A.Y 2007-08: The AO added Rs. 1,56,500/- as unexplained cash credits, noting discrepancies in the son's statement and the dates of cash deposits. The CIT(A) deleted the addition without verifying the AO's findings. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue for fresh examination, directing the CIT(A) to verify the dates of arrival and cash deposits, and to delete the addition if the deposits could be linked to the son's arrival in India. 5. Addition of Rs. 5,40,000/- as unexplained encashment of travelers' cheques for A.Y 2007-08: The AO added Rs. 5,40,000/- as unexplained income due to the absence of evidence for the encashment of travelers' cheques. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating the AO should have investigated further. The Tribunal disagreed, stating the onus was on the assessee to provide evidence. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue for re-examination, directing the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to adduce evidence and to decide the issue accordingly. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal for A.Y 2006-07 for statistical purposes and partly allowed the appeal for A.Y 2007-08 for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for proper verification and evidence for each assessment year independently.
|
