2013 (6) TMI 406 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowances of Rs. 3,18,000/- on account of gift - assessee could not produce the donors and donors did not appear in response to notices u/s 131 - Held that - There were two entries of Rs.3 lacs and Rs.59,940/- respectively which were received by the assessee. The assessee had furnished copy of bank statement of donor of Rs.3 lacs and also had explained the source of source by furnishing the details of credit side of entry in the pass book of donor. As notices u/s 131 were dated 15.12.2008 and AO without waiting passed the assessment order on 20.12.2008. Thus as all details were furnished and source of source were also explained, there is no reason to uphold the addition of Rs.3 lacs. As regards amount of Rs.18,000/- the amount is too small and was claimed to have been received on marriage anniversary of the assessee which should have been accepted by AO.In favour of assessee. Addition of Rs.59,440/- on account of share trading profit - Held that - The same was declared as income in the financial year 2002- 03 and the same was received in the year under consideration as apparent from copy of bank account. Therefore this amount cannot be considered as unexplained. In favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Validity of reopening of assessment based on different persons recording reasons and issuing notice.
2. Disallowance of gift amount and share trading profit.
3. Proper consideration of evidence and submissions by the appellant.
4. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
5. Levying of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act.

Issue 1: Validity of Reopening of Assessment
The appellant challenged the reopening of the assessment, arguing that the information relied upon was insufficient and the Assessing Officer did not apply his mind adequately. The appellant cited a Delhi High Court decision to support their contention that the notice issued based on the report of the Director of Income Tax Investigation was not valid for reopening the case. However, the Tribunal held that the information received from the department was crucial, and the Assessing Officer was not obligated to delve deeply into the facts for reopening. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's argument regarding the difference in persons recording reasons and issuing notices, as it was not pressed by the appellant.

Issue 2: Disallowance of Gift Amount and Share Trading Profit
The appellant contested the disallowances of Rs. 3,18,000/- on account of a gift and Rs. 59,440/- on share trading profit. The Tribunal observed that the appellant had provided necessary information and explanations, including bank statements and the source of funds. It was noted that the Assessing Officer made additions primarily because the donors did not appear in response to notices. However, the Tribunal found that all details were furnished, and the source of funds was explained, leading to the decision to allow the appeal on these grounds.

Issue 3: Proper Consideration of Evidence and Submissions
The appellant argued that the order passed by the Assessing Officer and CIT (A) did not adequately consider the evidence and submissions made. The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and evidence presented by the appellant, finding that the Assessing Officer had not waited for responses to notices before passing the assessment order. As a result, the Tribunal concluded that the additions made were not justified, and the appellant's contentions were valid, leading to the partial allowance of the appeal.

Issue 4: Initiation of Penalty Proceedings
The appellant raised concerns about the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, the Tribunal did not delve into this issue as it was considered general and did not require adjudication.

Issue 5: Levying of Interest
Regarding the levying of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act, the Tribunal did not find it necessary to address this issue as it was deemed consequential and did not require adjudication.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, emphasizing the importance of proper consideration of evidence and explanations provided by the taxpayer in such proceedings.

← Previous Next →