9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 1267 - AT - Income TaxGifts received by the assessee by way of India Resurgent bonds - Held that - The assessee himself has admitted before the assessing officer that the alleged donors are third parties. When the donors are unrelated third parties, it would be hard to believe that they have given gifts to the assessee, who is not known to any of the donors. In that kind of situation, we are unable to comprehend as to how the donors could give the gifts out of natural love and affection . Hence, in our view, the tax authorities are justified in holding that the assessee has failed to prove the claim of receipt of gifts. This is further fortified by the fact that the assessee has failed to furnish any of the details that were called for by the AO. As Ld A.R pointed out that the gifts from Raju Jham and Patel Dhanlaxmiben Arvindbhai have been received in the earlier years and hence the same cannot be assessed in AY 2003-04. We are of the view that this claim of the assessee requires verification, since it is made for the first time before us. Accordingly, we modify the order of Ld CIT(A) and restore the matter relating to the gifts received from the above said two parties to the file of the AO with the direction to examine the claim of the assessee afresh. The order of Ld CIT(A) with regard to the remaining amounts is confirmed. - Decided partly in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Computation of Long term capital gains on sale of four flats - AO did not allow deduction of 18% of sale consideration, being the share of daughters of the assessee - Held that - We notice that the facts relating to this issue have not been properly brought on record, i.e., whether the spouse of the assessee has also contributed her own money at the time of purchase of properties or her name was included for name sake only. If the spouse of the assessee had contributed her own money, then the daughters shall have right over her properties, since the spouse of the assessee has claimed to have died intestate. In that case, the MOU entered between the assessee and her daughters have to be examined and a proper decision is required to be taken. In this regard, the Ld A.R invited our attention to the provision of Hindu Succession Act. We notice that the assessing officer has simply rejected the claim of the assessee without examining the rights of the daughters of the assessee over the properties of the assessee s spouse. Hence, in our view, this issue requires fresh examination at the end of the assessing officer. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. - Decided in favour of assessee by way of remand. Rejection of claim for deduction of expenses incurred in respect of two flats located in Chennai - Held that - Assessee failed to substantiate that the expenses were incurred in connection with the transfer of flats located in Chennai. Before Ld CIT(A) also, the assessee did not furnish any other evidence and hence the first appellate authority confirmed the rejection of the claim. Before us also, no evidence was furnished to prove the claim of the assessee that the expenses were incurred in connection with the transfer of flats located in Chennai. Further, the assessee has also failed to furnish any explanation with regard to the difference in the expenditure claim. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the rejection of expenditure claim. - Decided against assessee. Claim of date of purchase of flat located at Punit Tower, Mumbai - indexation benefit - CIT(A) upheld the view of the AO allowing indexation benefit from FY 1998-99 - Held that - A.R could not contradict the finding of the Ld CIT(A) that the assessee obtained actual possession of the property only on 03-09-1998. Even otherwise, the assessee has failed to establish as to how he would be entitled to indexation benefit from FY 1997-98 merely on the basis of sale agreement. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of Ld CIT(A) on this issue.- Decided against assessee. Assessment of gifts received by the assessee by way of India millennium Deposits - Held that - Assessee failed to furnish any explanation with regard to the occasion/reason which prompted the donor to give gifts to the assessee. We notice that the facts prevailing in the instant year in respect of India millennium deposits are identical in nature. Hence, consistent with the view taken by us in respect of India Resurgent bonds, we uphold the order of the Ld CIT(A) in confirming the assessment of gifts received by way of India millennium bonds as income of the assessee. - Decided against assessee. Assessment of interest income - AO noticed that the interest income shown in the TDS certificates was more than that offered by the assessee and hence assessed the difference amount as interest income of the assessee confirmed by CIT(A) - Held that - If the assessee had already offered the different amount in the earlier year, the same cannot be assessed again in the current year, since double assessment of same income is not permissible. However, the claim of the assessee requires verification. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the AO with the direction to examine the claim of the assessee and take appropriate decision in accordance with the law.- Decided in favour of assessee by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Barred by limitation - Delay in filing appeals 2. Assessment year 2003-04: - Assessment of gifts received as income 3. Assessment year 2004-05: - Computation of capital gains on sale of flats - Deduction of expenses on transfer - Assessment of gifts received by way of India millennium bonds - Assessment of interest income Analysis: Issue 1: Barred by Limitation - Delay in Filing Appeals The assessee filed two appeals challenging orders passed by Ld CIT(A)-23 for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The appeals were found to be barred by limitation. The assessee provided reasons for the delay, citing health problems supported by medical certificates. The delay was condoned, and both appeals were admitted for hearing. Issue 2: Assessment Year 2003-04 - Gifts Received as Income The primary issue in this appeal was the assessment of gifts received by the assessee as income. The assessee claimed to have received India Resurgent bonds as gifts, crediting the equivalent rupee value in the capital account. However, the assessing officer and Ld CIT(A) assessed the gift amount as the assessee's income due to lack of evidence regarding the identity and creditworthiness of donors. The assessee's arguments regarding tax benefits and genuineness of gifts were not substantiated. The tribunal upheld the assessment, noting the failure to prove the relationship with donors and the reason for gifts. Issue 3: Assessment Year 2004-05 - Computation of Capital Gains on Sale of Flats: The dispute arose from the computation of capital gains on the sale of flats jointly owned by the assessee and his deceased wife. The AO rejected the deduction claimed for daughters' share, emphasizing computation based on the full value of consideration. The tribunal found the need for a fresh examination considering the rights of daughters over the properties. - Deduction of Expenses on Transfer: The rejection of the claim for deduction of expenses incurred in transferring flats in Chennai was upheld due to lack of substantiating evidence. - Assessment of Gifts Received: Gifts received by way of India millennium bonds were assessed as income due to insufficient details provided by the assessee, consistent with the treatment of gifts in the previous year. - Assessment of Interest Income: Discrepancies in interest income led to the assessment of the difference amount. The tribunal directed a verification of the claim to avoid double assessment. In conclusion, the appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, with specific issues requiring further examination and verification by the assessing officer. The judgment provided detailed analysis and upheld the principles of tax law in assessing the income and deductions of the assessee.
|
