9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 69 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 as unexplained investment - Treatment to the profit arising from the sale of shares as long term and short term capital gains - assessee stated that earlier also the assessee had received gift from his mother which has been accepted by the Revenue - Held that - Contention of the assessee is not acceptable in the present case because the principle of re judicata is not applicable in the Income-tax Proceedings and each assessment year is a separate unit. In the impugned order the Assessing Officer has doubted the creditworthiness of the donor and it was not proved beyond doubt as to from where the impugned amount of gift was remitted to the assessee. The AR of the assessee has not rebutted the objections raised by the Assessing Officer in this regard. The assessee has prepared statement of affairs as on 31.03.2005 & 31.03.2006 and the opening and closing balance of assets and liabilities have been shown by the assessee. Without maintaining the books of account it is not possible to prepare statement of affairs and opening and closing balances are shown of the assets and liability which is placed on record. Therefore the plea of the assessee that he does not maintain any books of account is not correct. Assessee was also unable to prove the basic requirement that the impugned amount of the alleged gift was received from assessee s mother as no bank statement of his mother was filed by the assessee at any stage to justify the genuineness of the gift. Therefore the ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer of the impugned amount as unexplained investment. - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Addition under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Treatment of profit on sale of shares as long-term capital gains (LTCG) or short-term capital gains (STCG). 3. Levy of interest under Section 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The assessee contested the addition of ?7.92 crores made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 69, claiming it was a gift from his mother out of natural love and affection, exempt under Section 56(vi). The CIT(A) upheld the AO's addition, alleging the assessee had channeled his own funds as a gift. The AO scrutinized the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the donor, Ms. Roula Shriram, and found the evidence unsatisfactory. The AO noted that the gift deed and bank advice did not substantiate the source of funds. The donor's financial status, as per her tax returns, did not support the capability to gift ?7.92 crores. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the lack of evidence proving the donor's creditworthiness and the source of funds. 2. Treatment of profit on sale of shares as LTCG/STCG: The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the profit from the sale of shares as LTCG/STCG instead of business income. The AO had treated the profits as business income, citing frequent transactions and significant volume as indicators of trading activity. The CIT(A) found the assessee held shares for a considerable period, indicating an investment intention. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting the assessee's compliance with CBDT Circulars No. 4/2007 and 6/2016, which guide the treatment of shares as capital assets based on holding period and transaction nature. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the profits as LTCG/STCG. 3. Levy of interest under Section 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The assessee contested the levy of interest under Section 234B. However, the Tribunal did not provide a detailed analysis or separate judgment on this issue, indicating it was not a primary focus of the appeals. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the profits from the sale of shares as LTCG/STCG, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. It also confirmed the addition of ?7.92 crores as unexplained investment under Section 69, dismissing the assessee's appeal. The levy of interest under Section 234B was not separately addressed in detail. Both appeals were dismissed, maintaining the CIT(A)'s findings.
|
