TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal affirms undisclosed income additions for minor son's savings & land investment</h1> <h3>Shri Nilesh Rameshwarprasad Gupta, “Radhakrishna” Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (3), Bhavnagar</h3> Shri Nilesh Rameshwarprasad Gupta, “Radhakrishna” Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (3), Bhavnagar - TMI Issues involved: 1. Addition of undisclosed income in the savings account of the minor son. 2. Addition of investment in land from undisclosed sources.Issue 1 - Savings Account: The appellant challenged the addition of &8377; 36,500 as undisclosed income in the savings account of the minor son. The appellant explained that the cash deposit was from accumulated gifts received for the son's birthday. However, the authorities did not accept this explanation, citing lack of documentary evidence. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, stating that the burden of proof was not discharged by the appellant. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting the absence of evidence supporting the claim of gifts. The Tribunal confirmed the addition, as the appellant failed to prove the source of the deposit.Issue 2 - Investment in Land: The appellant contested the addition of &8377; 1,15,000 as investment in land from undisclosed sources. The AO found unregistered purchase deeds at the residence during a search, leading to the conclusion that the investment was made from unaccounted income. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, emphasizing the lack of explanation for the source of investment. The Tribunal noted that the wife of the appellant had declared tuition income, but it was insufficient to explain the investment. The Tribunal confirmed the addition, as the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the source of investment. The substantive assessment in the appellant's name was deemed justified, considering the surrounding circumstances and lack of evidence supporting the claimed source of funds.Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the additions of undisclosed income in the savings account and investment in land from undisclosed sources. The appellant's contentions were not supported by sufficient evidence, leading to the confirmation of the additions by the authorities.
TaxTMI 