2018 (7) TMI 1089 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of gift received by the assessee from the wife of the elder brother of the assessee s husband (Jethani) - Held that - CIT(A) has simply brushed aside the documentary evidence filed by the assessee, observing that the affidavit, or confirmation, or transaction of cheque just explained the receipt of the amount by the assessee, but not the genuineness of the gift. The contents of the documentary evidence filed and the statement of the donor have not even been discussed. It is, thus, a case of non-reading and misreading of material documentary evidence brought on record by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the matter is remitted to the ld. CIT(A), to be decided afresh in accordance with law, discussing, on merits, all the evidence relied on by the assessee, on providing due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. The assessee, no doubt, shall co-operate in the fresh proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). Ordered accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against CIT(A)'s decision without adequate hearing and consideration of evidence.
2. Non-provision of 2nd remand report before passing appeal order.
3. Addition of ?12,000 on account of agriculture income.
4. Addition of ?8,00,000 as gift amount received.
5. Confirmation of gift addition under section 68 of IT Act.
6. Overall addition of ?8,12,000 in declared income.

Analysis:
1. The appellant raised concerns regarding the CIT(A)'s decision without proper hearing and consideration of evidence. Grounds 2, 3, and part of 6 were not pressed and rejected. The main issue was the addition of ?8,00,000 as a gift received by the appellant.

2. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted the receipt of the gift and conducted inquiries. The AO found discrepancies, including the lack of a social occasion for the gift, the donor's financial worth, and the timing of events. Consequently, the AO treated the gift as unexplained and made the addition.

3. The CIT(A) upheld the addition based on the lack of social occasion for the gift, questioning the genuineness of the transaction. The appellant submitted various documents supporting the gift's genuineness, including the donor's financial records and gift deed. However, the CIT(A) dismissed the evidence and confirmed the addition.

4. The appellant contended that the authorities did not consider the documentary evidence provided. The appellant argued that the donor's statements and supporting documents proved the genuineness of the gift. The Departmental Representative (DR) supported the CIT(A)'s decision based on the lack of social occasion and strained relationships between relatives.

5. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not adequately considered the documentary evidence and donor's statements. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, emphasizing a detailed review of all evidence and providing the appellant with a fair hearing. The appellant was directed to cooperate in the new proceedings.

6. In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision by the CIT(A) with a focus on thoroughly evaluating all evidence presented by the appellant.