2022 (11) TMI 329 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 153A - Receipt of Cash Gift by the appellant from her husband - HELD THAT - The assessee has filed Income Tax Returns and financial statement for the relevant assessment year and claimed that her husband has opening cash balance but she could not file any evidence to prove that her husband declared said cash balance in Wealth Tax Return filed for the relevant assessment year, because cash in hand in excess of Rs. 50,000/- is liable for wealth tax. Therefore, the claim of the assessee that she had received cash gift of Rs. 39,75,000/- from her husband cannot be accepted, because, she could not adduce necessary evidences. In so far as balance gift of Rs. 7 lakhs received through bank, no evidence including bank statements of the assessee and her husband was filed to prove that said gift has been received through bank. Further, neither the assessee nor her husband filed any evidences during search and post search proceedings to claim gift paid and received by the parties. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the arguments of the assessee, she had received gift from her husband is only an afterthought that too more than two years from the date of search without any documentary evidences. Hence, we are of the considered view that the AO has rightly rejected the arguments of the assessee and accepted income declared including undisclosed income offered towards source for purchase of property. CIT(A) rightly apprised the facts and sustained the additions made by the AO and thus, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss appeal of the assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
2. Validity of the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction.
3. Taxability of the gift received by the appellant from her husband.
4. Applicability of Section 56(2) regarding gifts received from relatives.
5. Validity of the appellant's admission of income and explanation of property acquisition.
6. Erroneous offering of the gift as income.
7. Correct assessment of the appellant's income by the Assessing Officer.
8. Assessing Officer's acknowledgment of the gift from the husband and its taxability.
9. Evidences provided for the gift received from the husband.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals):
The appellant contended that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was without jurisdiction. However, the Tribunal did not find any merit in this argument and upheld the jurisdiction of the Commissioner.

2. Validity of the Assessing Officer's Jurisdiction:
The appellant challenged the validity of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) read with Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, citing the absence of notice under Section 153A. The Tribunal found no merit in this ground, stating that the AO had correctly proceeded under Section 153C based on materials collected during a search in another case, leading to the assessment of the appellant's undisclosed income.

3. Taxability of the Gift Received by the Appellant from Her Husband:
The appellant argued that the gift received from her husband should not be taxable. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had initially admitted the gift as undisclosed income and included it in her return of income. The Tribunal found that the appellant's later claim of the gift being non-taxable was an afterthought.

4. Applicability of Section 56(2) Regarding Gifts Received from Relatives:
The appellant claimed that the gift from her husband should not be taxable under Section 56(2) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal observed that the appellant had admitted the gift as undisclosed income during the search proceedings and included it in her return of income. The Tribunal upheld the AO's decision to treat the gift as taxable income.

5. Validity of the Appellant's Admission of Income and Explanation of Property Acquisition:
The Tribunal noted that during the search, the appellant admitted that the source of funds for purchasing properties was not disclosed and agreed to offer the amount as undisclosed income. The appellant's later explanation that the funds were a gift from her husband was rejected as an afterthought without substantial evidence.

6. Erroneous Offering of the Gift as Income:
The appellant argued that she had erroneously offered the gift as income. The Tribunal found that the appellant had admitted the gift as undisclosed income during the search and included it in her return. The Tribunal rejected the claim of error, stating that the appellant's later argument was an afterthought.

7. Correct Assessment of the Appellant's Income by the Assessing Officer:
The Tribunal upheld the AO's assessment of the appellant's income, including the undisclosed income admitted during the search. The Tribunal found that the AO had correctly assessed the income based on the appellant's admission and the materials found during the search.

8. Assessing Officer's Acknowledgment of the Gift from the Husband and Its Taxability:
The Tribunal noted that the AO had considered the appellant's claim of receiving a gift from her husband but found that the appellant failed to provide necessary evidence to substantiate the claim. The Tribunal upheld the AO's decision to treat the gift as taxable income.

9. Evidences Provided for the Gift Received from the Husband:
The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the gift from her husband. The claim of receiving a substantial amount in cash was not supported by necessary documentation, including wealth tax returns. The Tribunal upheld the AO's decision to treat the gift as undisclosed income.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, upholding the AO's assessment of the appellant's income, including the undisclosed income admitted during the search. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the validity of the AO's jurisdiction, and the taxability of the gift received from her husband. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's later claims were afterthoughts without substantial evidence.

← Previous Next →