Unexplained investment additions fail where gift evidence stands unrebutted; benami characterisation is also rejected for the business concern.

An unexplained investment addition was deleted where cash deposits were traced to an earlier gift received by cheque, supported by affidavit and documents that remained unrebutted; a time gap between receipt and deposit was held insufficient to reject the explanation, and suspicion could not substitute for proof. The business concern was also treated as the assessee's proprietary concern rather than a benami entity, so the related income, depreciation, bad debt and loss adjustments were to be assessed substantively in the assessee's hands.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the addition of Rs. 1,00,000 as unexplained investment was sustainable; (ii) Whether M/s Saroj International was a benami concern.

Issue (i): Whether the addition of Rs. 1,00,000 as unexplained investment was sustainable.

Analysis: The amount deposited in cash was stated to represent a gift received earlier by cheque. The supporting affidavit and documents were not effectively rebutted, and no material showed that the gifted amount had been otherwise utilised. A time gap between receipt of the gift and later cash deposits, by itself, was held insufficient to displace the explanation, and suspicion was not treated as a substitute for proof.

Conclusion: The assessee satisfactorily explained the source of the deposits and the addition was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether M/s Saroj International was a benami concern.

Analysis: The prior finding in the connected matter was relied upon to hold that the business belonged to the assessee as a proprietary concern and was not benami. On that footing, the related income, depreciation, bad debt and loss adjustments were to be taken in the assessee's case on the substantive basis.

Conclusion: The concern was not benami and the consequential tax treatment was to follow in the assessee's hands, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The additions and adverse characterisation were set aside and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: An addition based only on suspicion or delay in utilisation cannot be sustained where the assessee's explanation is supported by evidence and remains unrebutted, and a business cannot be treated as benami without material establishing that conclusion.

---