TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 1171
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rwal at Chandigarh. Therefore, due to these reasons, there was nominal delay. 3. Considering the explanation of the assessee and that nominal delay is there in filing the appeal, we are of the view that the assessee has sufficient cause for explaining the delay. The delay in filing of the appeals is, therefore, condoned. 4. We have heard the learned representatives of both the parties and perused the material available on record. All the appeals are decided as under : 5. In this appeal the assessee challenged non-admission of additional evidences by the learned CIT (Appeals) under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules and addition of Rs. 5 lacs (actual Rs. 5,25,000/-) under section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained gifts. The Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs. 5,25,000/- under section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained gifts. The Assessing Officer required the assessee to file confirmation and copy of bank account, copy of income-tax return and other supporting documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of the gifts received by the assessee. The assessee in order to comply with the requirement sought number of adjournments but could not file necessary eviden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oted that since no exceptional reason has been explained by the assessee, therefore, additional evidences could not be admitted and accordingly, dismissed the appeal of the assessee as genuineness of the gifts have not been established in the matter. 7. We have heard the learned representatives of both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the assessee received cash gifts from all the above three donors. Therefore, the onus would be upon the assessee to prove the identity of the donors, their capacity to advance the gifts and the genuineness of the gifts in the matter. The assessee has accordingly, explained that the donors are his friends and the gifts have been received on his marriage anniversary. The assessee accordingly, filed affidavits of the donors alongwith Jamabandi as proof of the ownership of land and form 'J' for sale of agricultural produce. The copies of the affidavits are filed on record in which two affidavits of the donors have only thump impression and one affidavit signed in Punjabi. The affidavits are, however, in English. It is, therefore, clear that the deponents of the affidavits would not be knowing language of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess of the gift. Since the claim of gift is made by the assessee, the onus lies on him not only to establish the identity of the person making the gift but also his capacity to make such a gift. In assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1995-96 the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had received two gifts of Rs. 10 lakhs each from N. R. E. accounts of two donors, namely V and D. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee could not discharge his onus of proving the credit-worthiness of the donors and held that the amount of Rs. 20 lakhs which had been declared by the assessee as gift, was in fact his income and added to his total income under section 68. The addition was deleted by the Commissioner (Appeals) and this was upheld by the Tribunal. On appeal to the High Court: Held that there was nothing on record to show as to what was the financial capacity of the donors, what was the credit-worthiness of the donors, what kind of relationship the donors had with the assessee, what were the sources of funds gifted to the assessee and whether they had the capacity of giving large amounts of gift to the assessee. Further, the assessee was asked to appear in person be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....love and affection. It was nothing but a subterfuge to avoid income tax. The transactions were not genuine ones". 11. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case Smt.Usha Rani Vs. CIT, 301 ITR 121 held as under : "Held, dismissing the appeals, that it was found from a perusal of the orders on record that the reasons were recorded by the competent authority for initiation of proceedings under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The sufficiency thereof could not be gone into by the court. It could not be successfully argued that the reasons did not have any nexus with the material available with the Assessing Officer. The authorities below had disbelieved receipt of gifts. There was nothing on record to show the relationship between the donor and the donee, capacity of the donor to make gifts and the occasion therefore. The assessee had failed to discharge the onus to prove the gifts. The reassessment proceedings were valid." 12. Considering the above discussions, it is clear that the assessee failed to prove any relation with the donors and their creditworthiness. No sufficient evidence or material is filed on record to prove the genuineness of the gifts in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of sundry creditors under section 68 of the Act as well as addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- on account of unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has shown sundry creditors of Rs. 7,97,600/- in the books of account. The assessee was required to explain the same. The assessee sought adjournment. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to file confirmation of the credit balance of the aforesaid amount. The assessee later on filed confirmation from Mukat Brick Klin, Khojenajra, sundry creditors of Rs. 1,17,500/- and M/s Sandheoli Bricks Inds., sundry creditors of Rs. 1 lacs. However, with respect to the credit balance of Rs. 5,80,000/- from the remaining creditors, the assessee could not file any confirmation or documentary evidence to support the same. The details of the same are as under : i) Shri Ajay Bansal Rs.1,71,500/- ii) Mukat Bricks Klin Dhodan Rs.1,93,700/- iii) Yaseen Rs. 23,300/- iv) Hari Iron & Cement Store Rs.1,67,600/- Rs.5,80,100/- 14. The Assessing Officer brought on record that the assessee did not file confirmation or documentary evidence and a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... material in the Profit & Loss Account because no purchase vouchers for a sum of Rs. 5,80,100/- have been produced. Therefore, there is no question of entering the genuine credit in the books of account. This finding of fact has not been rebutted by the assessee at all. The assessee in the Paper Book has filed application for admission of additional evidence before the learned CIT (Appeals) in which the assessee sought admission of the confirmation and documentary evidences before the learned CIT (Appeals). However, the same would show that in the case Shri Ajay Bansal photocopy of account and photocopy of bill have been filed. In the case Mukat Bricks Klin Dhodan same copy of the account and copy of the bill and copy of confirmation of the account is filed. The same is the position in respect of Yaseen and Hari Iron & Cement Store. It is, therefore, clear that in none of the cases the assessee has filed any independent confirmation. All the outstanding balance appearing in the books of account of the assessee as stated to have been from the creditors. Mere confirmation of the account or copy of the account would not prove the genuineness of the credit in the matter. As noted above....