Unexplained investment presumption upheld; substantive addition sustained because HUF-origin claim lacked cogent contemporaneous proof, protective plea rejected.

Addition under the Income-tax Act was sustained as a substantive addition under the unexplained investment presumption because the assessee failed to produce cogent contemporaneous evidence that the investment originated from HUF funds. The article explains that HUF is a separate taxable entity but ownership of an asset held in an individual's name requires proof of source; where that proof is absent statutory presumption applies and the Assessing Officer may make a substantive addition. A protective assessment cannot be invoked by the assessee to convert a concluded substantive finding into a protective one; the protective route is available only where the AO himself proceeds alternatively.

---

---

Issues: Whether the addition of Rs.50,00,000 made under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the individual assessee's hands was justified on substantive basis or ought to have been treated as a protective addition, and whether the assessee proved that the investment originated from HUF funds.

Analysis: The reopening under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was previously upheld and is not reopened. The Assessing Officer recorded factual findings that the LIC policy stood in the individual's name, transactions in the intermediary's bank account preceded the alleged Memorandum of Understanding, and no contemporaneous documentary evidence (books of account, sale records, cash flow, proposal form or MOU) was produced to establish that the funds originated from the HUF. Section 2(31) confirms that HUF is a separate taxable entity but ownership of an asset standing in an individual's name requires cogent proof of source if claimed to be HUF property. The statutory presumption under Section 69 applies where the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the source of investment. Protective assessment is available only where the Assessing Officer himself entertains doubt as to the person chargeable and proceeds alternatively; it is not a remedy the assessee can invoke to convert a concluded substantive finding into a protective one. Applying these principles to the established facts, the Assessing Officer reached a conclusive satisfaction that the investment was unexplained in the individual's hands and made a substantive addition.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs.50,00,000 under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is justified as a substantive addition in the individual's hands; the plea to treat the addition as protective is rejected.

---