The fact that the Assessing Officer had accepted part of the loans indicates that the Assessing Officer not only accepted the identity and genuineness of the creditors but also the creditworthiness of the creditors. However, he chose to disallow a part of the loan without bringing on record any material to show that the assessee had any other source of income which could have been routed in the form of loan given by a third party. The fact that the assessment was completed in hurry is apparent, because the investigation commenced on 18-12-2007 and the assessment came to be made on 31-12-2007. The creditors have explained the sources of their deposits which in effect means that the sources were explained by the creditors. The Assessing Officer has not pointed out how the explanation is not convincing and merely proceeded to invoke provisions of section 68, that too for a part of the loan. Since the assessment was made in hurry, it is not specifically mentioned as to whether the interest on the loan was allowed or not but the fact remains that the relevant material placed before the Bench indicates that the assessee claimed interest payable on the loans and there was no specific disallowance in the assessment order, which implies that the interest was allowed by the Assessing Officer. Thus, considering the overall circumstances of the case, the Accountant Member was justified in holding that the initial onus placed upon the assessee stood discharged in the instant case and in the absence of any material to prove that the sources explained by the creditors are not genuine, the Assessing Officer was not justified in calling upon the assessee to prove the source of source.
Lucknow Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Sanjiv Gupta v. DCIT , held that Circular No. 7 of 2009 dated 22 October, 2009 withdrawing the Circular No. 23 of 1969 dated 23 July, 1969 would be effective only prospectively from 22 October, 2009. The Circulars are briefly explained in the following table.
We have-considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. So far as facts are concerned, the undisputed facts are that assessees inherited in the co-ownership a Bunglow No.2, Faizabad Road, Opposite to IT College, Lucknow. This was sold by these assessees vide sale deed dated 20.11.2003. Apparent consideration is declared at Rs. 1,20,00,000/ – whereas valuation as per SVA is Rs.2,48,19,410/ -. The assessees objected to the proposal of the
Assessee having failed to prove the identity of the non-resident donors who are said to have gifted substantial amounts to him from their NRE accounts by producing them personally or copies of their passports and also failed to prove the creditworthiness of the said donors, the alleged gifts cannot be treated as genuine, more so since the assessee had no direct relationship with the donors, there was no occasion for making the gifts, and there was no contact between the parties for almost ten years before the time of said gifts.
Where fair market value of the capital asset under transfer is less than the valuation as per SVA and such valuation as per SVA becomes final under Stamp Duty Act then the assessee is left with no choice and has to pay tax on the notional sale consideration on the valuation as per SVA.
Regarding the addition made u/s 41(1), we are of the view that the Assessing Officer has incorrectly invoked this provision. There is neither any remission nor cessation of the liability. The Assessing Officer has simply added all the credits appearing in the balance sheet which could not be hit by Section 41(1).
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In our considered view , the reasons advanced by the learned CIT for refusing to grant continuation of recognition u/s 80G(5) are superfluous and do not stand to legal scrutiny within the meaning of section 80G(5).
So far as addition u/s 40A(3) is concerned, the undisputed facts are that assessee has purchased raw hides/skins for the purposes of manufacturing leather and leather products from local producers either directly or through their agents. Even though the Assessing Officer issued letters to various producers and some of these have come back unserved but it does not prove that the producers of the skin from whom assessee had made purchases are non-existent.
he letter-cum-certific ate issued by the donors were undated, letter given by Shri Habib-ur Rehman was signed by his wife, the details about the bank account were either not filled in the letters sent by the donors or the numbers of bank account given were incorrect, signatures of Smt Badrun-nisan Hanfi as given on the letter and -as signed on the cheque did not match
The undisputed fact is that return filed by the assessee on 31.7.2001 did not contain any information with respect to the amount of gifts received by the assessee in the name of his children. That return was processed under section 143(1) on 1.2.2002 and notice under section 143(2) was also issued on 14.2.2002 and compliance was required to be made on 1.4.2002 which was not made.
