9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 592X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Identical Eight Grounds of Appeal for three Assessment Years i.e. 2001-02, 2004-05,and 2006-07 were filed by the Assessing Officer (AO) against the order dt. 23-01-2009 of the CIT(A)-XX, Mumbai. Grounds of Appeal read as under : "i. The learned CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law and in the circumstances of the case in directing to assess the income generated through sale of shares under the head 'Capital Gain' and allow the various deduction/exemption on the same as per provisions of the Act as against the additions made by the AO as unexplained cash credits u/s.68 of the Act." "ii. The learned CIT(A) has erred in directing to delete the addition in respect of household withdrawal." "iii. The learned CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law and in circumstances of the case in not appreciating the facts that entire transaction giving rise to capital gain are merely an accommodation route, through which the unaccounted money of the assessee has converted into accounted money in the grab of long term capital gain arising on account of purchases and sale of shares." "iv. The learned CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law and in circumstances of the case in not appreciating the Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs Murthukarupan 290 ITR 154 whereas facts of the case are different. IV. Whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the principal of rejudicature in holding that even a mistake had been committed by some other A.O. in accepting a gift by the same donar as genuine then such mistake on part of the A.O. shall be binding on all other A.Os in respect of all other gifts given by the same donar to other donees. V. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(Appeals) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the AO be restored. VI The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or to submit additional new ground which may be necessary. 3. First we would like to deal with the orders for AYs. 2000-01, 2004-05 and 2006-07 (ITA Nos. 2796/M/09; 2800/M/09; 2802/M/09). As stated above, in these appeals, one of the grounds of appeal is about addition made by the AO u/s.68 of the Act on account of shown long term capital gain (LTCG). 3.1. As per brief facts of the case, a search and seizure action u/s. 132 (1) of the Act was carried out on 01-09-2005 in the group cases of Dilbagh Raj Arora based at Kanpur, Mumbai and Delhi. The asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iscussed the order of the FAA paragraphs of our said orders. After considering the arguments of the AO and the FAA and after perusing the orders of the 'A' Bench, Lucknow in the cases of Members of Arora group, we have held that order of the FAA in deleting the addition made u/s. 68 needs no interference. We find that orders passed by the AO and FAA for the Assessment Years under consideration are same as in the case of Smt. Pooja Arora and Sh. Praveen Kumar (Individual)(supra). Only difference is the figures of additions made by the AO and AY in which said additions were made. 4. Before us, Departmental Representative (DR) and Authorised Representative (AR) made similar submission as in the case of Smt. Pooja Arora and Sh. Praveen Kumar (Individual) (supra). Following the said orders we uphold the order of the FAA. Grounds of Appeal Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 of the AO for the Assessment Years 2000-01, 2004-05 and 2006-07 stand dismissed. 5. Next Grounds of Appeal for all the four assessment years are about low withdrawals by the assessee for his house-hold expenses (Ground of appeal Nos. 2and 6 for the AYs. 2000-01, 2004-05 and 2006-07 and Ground Nos.1 and 2 for AY.2002-03). As stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the FAA. After taking in to consideration the assessment order and the arguments of the Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee he held that the identity of the donor was not in dispute, that the source of the gift was fully explained by way of necessary documentary evidences i.e. the bank account no.154515 with Bank of Baroda in which the sale proceeds of sale of Apartment was deposited and the gift was given out of the said sale proceeds deposited in the said bank account, that the transactions being regular banking transaction from the known persons were fully explained, that the only allegation of the AO was with regard to the relation of the donor and the occasion of giving such a huge amount of gift, that the gift was made from the self generated funds of the donor from sale of Apartment for which the appropriate authority of the Department has granted no objection certificate u/s 269UL(3) of the Act, that the same donor had made similar gifts to other group members of the appellant i.e. Rs.75 lakhs to Shri Dilbagh Rai Arora (HUF) and Rs.40 lakhs each to Shri Som Arora (HUF) and Shri Rajkumar Arora (HUF) of the same family, that AO had not brought on record any adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t should be without any consideration. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the assessee received the gift from Mrs. Noreen Jayantilal Manek who had also given gifts to three more persons belonging to the same family to which the assessee belongs and in one of the cases of Raj Kumar Arora, H.U.F. for the assessment year 2002-2003 i.e. assessment year under consideration, the Assessing Officer, while framing the assessment under section 143(3) of the IT. Act had accepted genuineness of the gift. During the course of hearing, learned counsel assessee, stated at bar that no further action under section 263 was the said case so the assessment order attained the finality. The contention of the learned counsel for the assessee was not controverted by the Learned DR. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Muthukarupan [2007] 290 ITR 154 (Mad) has held as under: "…..that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that it would be a travesty of justice if the assessee, one of the co-owners, was solely picked out and an enhanced income was attributable in his hands for the same property, was based on a correct appreciation of evidence and therefore, no question o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
