9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spital, they could not furnish either the details of such persons who gave the gifts, nor any other details or documentary evidence to substantiate their claim - the onus of establishing the identity of the donors, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the gifts claimed - Explanation of the assessee of having received the gifts also needs to be viewed in the backdrop of the need for the assessees to explain the sources for the amounts of capital introduced by them in the firm, M/s. Prem Sharma Cardiac Care Centre, Warangal - the assessees are in medical profession with a standing that they could establish a hospital of their own, the amounts of gifts may be treated as unexplained income of the assessees from their profession, instead as unexplained credits liable for addition under S.68 of the Act - order of the CIT(A) is set aside – Decided in favour of Assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... original bills and vouchers before the Assessing Officer for claiming depreciation on the assets in question, but since the assessee failed to discharge such an onus, he upheld the disallowance. He however, taking note of the satisfaction expressed by the Assessing Officer in the remand report with regard to invoice in respect of one item, directed the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation only with regard to that invoice of ₹ 54,000, but confirmed disallowance with regard to other items of machinery/assets claimed to have been acquired by the assessee during the year. 5. Aggrieved by the disallowance sustained by the CIT(A), assessee is in second appeal before us. 6. We heard both sides and perused the impugned orders of the Revenue authorities and other material available on record. It is on account of assessee's inability to produce the original invoices in support of the purchase of machinery, claimed to have been purchased during the year, that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee on such additions to the assets. It is the case of the assessee that the invoices in respect of machinery purchased during the year was part of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the sources for the capital introduced by them in the firm in the assessment year 2004-05, claimed amounts of ₹ 9,20,000 in the case of Dr.Prem Raj Sharma and of ₹ 1,40,000 in the case of Dr.Nivedita Sharma, as representing the gifts received by them on the occasion of inauguration of the hospital. Assessing Officer asked to furnish complete details of the nature of the gifts received and also substantiate the genuineness of the transaction alongwith the documentary evidence. In response it was stated by the assessees that the gifts received were at the time of opening of the hospital on 1.12.2003 by way of cash/cheque from friends, relatives and medical representatives for which no list has been maintained. Except stating so, the assessees have not furnished any other relevant information or evidence. Observing in the circumstances that the assessees has failed to discharge the onus that lay on them to substantiate the claim of having received the gifts, the Assessing Officer, treated these gifts of ₹ 9,20,000 and ₹ 1,40,000 as unproved, and consequently made respective additions in the hands of these two individuals. 10. On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 13. In the result, these two appeals of the assessees for assessment year 2004-05 are treated as partly allowed Other Appeals for Assessment year 2005-06 Dr.Prem Raj Sharma : ITA No.547/Hyd/2013 Dr.Nivedita Sharma : ITA No.541/Hyd/2013 : 14. In these appeals, effective grievance of the assessees, is against the additions made under S.68 of the Act on account of unproved gift ₹ 8,32,350 in the case of Dr.Premraj Sharma; and of ₹ 4,10,000 in the case of Dr.Nivedita Sharma for the assessment years 2004-05. 15. Brief facts of the case are that for the assessment year 2005-06, an amount of ₹ 8,32,350 in the case of Dr.Premraj Sharma has been claimed to have been received as gift from his father Shri R.P.Sharma on his demise. During the course of assessment proceedings, when the assessee was asked to furnish the complete details as to nature of gifts received and substantiate the genuineness of the transactions alongwith documentary evidence, it was stated vide letter filed on 21.3.2007 that the gift was received from his father by way of cheques and the sources for the same was distribution of funds by the sons of late Sri Rajendra Prasad Sharma. Except sating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessees have failed to discharge the onus of establishing the genuineness of the transactions, and no details were furnished in that behalf. When the assessees make a claim of having received monies/gifts of such magnitude, burden of proof lies on them to establish the correctness of such claim, by furnishing relevant details and necessary evidence. Since the assessees have failed to discharge the onus that lies on them, the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting their claims with regard to the gifts received. However, considering totality of facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, the fact that the assessees in this case, have claimed to have received the gifts in question from their respective fathers, out of natural love and affection, and the amounts in question also are also claimed to have been received by way of cheques, there must be substantial evidence in support of the claims made in that behalf. As noted above, Dr. Nivedita Sharma could have even produced her father before the Assessing Officer for examination, to substantiate the claim of having received the gift by her. Considering totality of facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
