9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee - The burden is on the assessee to rebut the same and if he fails to rebut it, it can be held against the assessee that it was a receipt of an income nature - Even if money came by bank cheques and were credited through banking transactions by itself was not of any significance - The assessee failed to render an explanation for such sizable cash credits in the accounts - Decided against assessee. - Tax Appeal No. 884 of 2013, Tax Appeal No. 885 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 15-1-2014 - Akil Kureshi And Sonia Gokani,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. SN Soparkar, Sr. Adv. ORDER (Per : Honourable Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi) Assessee has preferred these appeals challenging the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 4.1.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sit, the assessee had given the amount as loan to a company. He, therefore, called upon the assessee to explain the receipts of the amount and its source asking him to show cause why in absence of an explanation, such amount should not be added to the total income as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act for short). The assessee perhaps for want of time could not furnish full details. The Assessing Officer framed the assessment on 31st December and added such amount in the income of the assessee. The assessee preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority. The assessee produced details of four donors who had, according to the assessee, given gifts of the said amount. After calling for the remand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r important elements, namely that of genuineness of the transactions and the creditworthiness of the donors according to the Tribunal were not established. The Tribunal noted as under: 12. In the present case it is seen that the 4 donors are not related to the donors and the assessee belong to the same community. However, the Ld. A.R. Could not substantiate the relationship by bringing any material on record. 13. The assessee has placed in paper book the copy of the income tax return of Shri Dilip Patel one of the donor, for calendar year 2004 filed in USA at page 24 to 27 of the paper book. On perusing the same, it is seen that at page 26 is the Schedule A itemized deductions and under which it is indicated that during the year Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10267 441500 4 Shri Vipul Patel Storeowner 40441 5677 34764 10023 431000 15. Perusal of the details the above chart reveals as under:- (a) In case of Shri Ramanbhai Patel though the gift given is of Rs.870000/- (equivalent to US $ 20233), only the copy of confirmation, passport and certificate of the bank issuing Demand Draft is on record. The copy of his income tax return is not on record and therefore in his case, the capacity to gift cannot be proved. (b) In the case of Shri Suresh Patel, it can be seen that in the income tax return he has stated that he is unemployed and has filed return of income jointly with his wife and the total joint income after payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given any finding, the general observation of the A.O. that the credits were not genuine has to be rejected in respect of these two donors, as the initial onus of the appellant stands discharged. unquote. The reason given for granting relief in respect of the impugned two donors appears to be non-convincing especially when the A.O. has given findings of facts; hence the remand report ought to have been considered along with the assessment order. The Principal factors that the Tribunal took into consideration were that the donors were not related to the assessee, they were mainly stated to be belonged to the same community and there was no occasion for the donors to give such sizable gifts to the assessee. More significantly, the resourc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ebut it, it can be held against the assessee that it was a receipt of an income nature. It was also a case where though amounts were received through banking channels, Assessing Officer in view of the facts held that the gifts were not real and treated the receipts as income applying section 68 of the Act. The Apex Court held that the fact that money came by bank cheques and were credited through banking transactions by itself was not of any significance and reversed the decision of the High Court which had upset the factual findings of the Tribunal. In the present case also, we find that the assessee failed to render an explanation for such sizable cash credits in the accounts. The Tribunal has assessed the facts in proper perspective an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
