Income Tax : The Tribunal held that cash deposits during demonetisation cannot be treated as unexplained when backed by audited books, invoices...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that profit cannot be estimated arbitrarily when regular books of account are maintained and not rejected unde...
Income Tax : A large spousal gift exemption was denied due to failure in proving genuineness, creditworthiness, and source of funds. The ruling...
Income Tax : Income without satisfactory explanation is taxed at a special high rate under Section 115BBE. The provisions place strict liabilit...
Income Tax : ITAT held spousal gift taxable under Section 68 due to lack of evidence on genuineness, bank trail, and donor capacity despite Sec...
Finance : The Supreme Court upheld a Will executed in favour of the testator’s sister despite objections from his wife and children. The C...
Income Tax : Tribunal reiterated that credits brought forward from earlier financial years cannot ordinarily be taxed under Section 68 in subse...
Goods and Services Tax : Allahabad High Court ruled that while authorities could verify documents during transit, absence of an e-Tax Invoice did not confe...
Income Tax : The Tribunal observed that the assessee had repaid the unsecured loan along with interest after deducting TDS and the lender had o...
Income Tax : Tribunal ruled that future projections under DCF method cannot be tested solely against later actual financial performance. It obs...
Income Tax : Assessing Officers should follow the sequence as noted below for applying provisions of section 68 of the Act: Step 1: Whether the...
We are unable to uphold the view of the Tribunal that it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to establish with the help of material on record that the share monies had come or emanated from the assessee’s coffers. Section 68 of the Act casts no such burden upon the Assessing Officer.
On going through the records, we find that an important query was raised by the Department as to whether these two donors had the financial capacity to make the gift(s) in favour of the assessees herein. This query has not at all been answered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [‘ITAT’, for short].
Section 68 of the Act – substantive provisions (post amendment by Finance Act 2012) – Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year.
Coming to the facts of the case, the assessee was afforded sufficient opportunities to furnish confirmations in respect of the impugned credits by the Assessing Officer (refer page 2 of the assessment order). A final show-cause notice was issued by him on 22/03/2006, stating the said fact, and by way of allowing a last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case, for 24/03/2006, and which (notice) again remained un-responded, even up to the date of passing of the assessment order, i.e., 29/03/2006 (refer page 3 of the assessment order).
In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the partners Shri C.P. Mathur and Shri L.C. Mathur contributed Rs. 8 lacs and Rs. 4,30,000/- respectively as their capital and the Assessing Officer made the addition by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Income-tax Act. On a similar issue, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kewal Krishan & Partners, Sri Ganganagar (supra) held as under :-
The dispute is regarding addition of Rs.14,60,052/- made by AO on account of unsecured loans from Shri Balwantbhai Grewal. There is no dispute that the said amount had been shown as loan in books of account of the assessee. Assessee could not produce any evidence to prove the identity and creditworthiness of Shri Balwantbhai Grewal who lived in UK and genuineness of transaction. Subsequently before CIT(A), assessee submitted that the amount had been wrongly entered in books and the same related to transaction of Shri Balwantbhai Grewal with the sister concern M/s. Kaypan Vanijya Pvt. Ltd.
In order to curb the practice of laundering of unaccounted money by taking advantage of basic exemption limit, it is proposed to tax the unexplained credits, money, investment, expenditure, etc., which has been deemed as income under section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of 30% (plus surcharge and cess as applicable). It is also proposed to provide that no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of the Act in computing deemed income under the said sections.
It is, proposed to amend section 68 of the Act to provide that the nature and source of any sum credited, as share capital, share premium etc., in the books of a closely held company shall be treated as explained only if the source of funds is also explained by the assessee company in the hands of the resident shareholder. However, even in the case of closely held companies, it is proposed that this additional onus of satisfactorily explaining the source in the hands of the shareholder, would not apply if the shareholder is a well regulated entity, i.e. a Venture Capital Fund, Venture Capital Company registered with the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI).
It is not in dispute that there were cash deposits of the equivalent amounts in the bank accounts of the creditors just before advancing loan to the assessee or on the date of issuing cheques to the assessee. In the case of the creditor, ‘RS’, his bank statement is filed in which Rs. 2,50,000 has been deposited, but neither it is mentioned that it was cash nor it is mentioned how the amount similar to the credit was credited in his bank account.
The issue for consideration before is whether the gift received by the assessee is genuine or not? As per the AO, gift of such a substantial amount was not justified to a nonrelative/ no blood relation and the creditworthiness of the donor is not adequate. The CIT(A) held that, in fact, the Assessing Officer has in his remand report clearly stated that “The donor has confirmed in his statement the fact of giving gift to the appellant during the year under consideration.
