9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Smt. Urvashi Sodhan, A.R. ORDER Per Bench These six appeals filed by the assessee which have emanated from the orders of ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-IV, Ahmedabad, dated 22.03.2010 for A.Y. 2001-02 and 19.03.2010 for A.Y. 2002-03, 04-05, 05-06 06-07. Arguments in all appeals are same. Therefore, we are deciding all in a consolidate order for the sake of convenience. The grounds of all appeals are as under:- IT(SS)A No. 544/Ahd/2010 (A.Y. 01-02) "1. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the evidences filed without giving reasons was correct and valid. 2. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming addition of Rs.3,55,521/- being unexplained deposit in Capital Account. 3. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that the said addition was correctly made in the order passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3)." IT (SS)A No. 545/Ahd/2010 (A.Y. 02-03) "1. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming addition of Rs.1,60,000/- introduced in the Capital Account of the appellant which were made at the withdrawals from M/s Jamnadas Industries. 2. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in not accepting the ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 19.09.2006. Consequent to the search action and based upon material found during the course of search, the proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act were initiated. Accordingly, notice u/s. 153C was issued on 31/01/2008 and in compliance thereto the assessee did not file its return of income for the assessment year 2001-02. On verification of the records, it was found that the assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration at Rs. 42,415/- u/s. 139(1) of the IT Act. The case was scrutinized u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of IT Act. During the course of assessment proceeding, the assessee was asked to furnish the capital account, details of receipt and payment, profit loss account and balance sheet for the years covered under assessment proceedings. On examination of the details furnished it was found that there is a capital addition of Rs.3,55,521/- in cash. The assessee was asked to explain this addition. In response thereto, the assessee could not furnish any satisfactory explanation. Thus, the A.O. made addition of Rs. 3,55,521/- as undisclosed income in A.Y. 2001-02. 2(i). Similarly in A.Y. 2002-03, the A.O. noticed a gift of Rs.1,60,000/- and the assessee was aske ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad decided the issue against the Karta of the appellant HUF and his wife. The facts of the appellant's case were not different. The appellant had introduced the cash of Rs.3,55,521/- in its capital account like its Karta. There was virtually no explanation with the appellant for this cash introduced in the capital account and for this reason only adjournment were sought. The appellant had not explained the source of he money. Thus, he confirmed the addition. 3(i). Now the assessee is before us. The ld. Counsel for the appellant filed the paper book and has drawn our attention that this amount was the past savings. The appellant was filed return but there is no evidence of past return filed. Thus, she requested to allow one more opportunity and sent back the case to the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT D.R. has not opposed the proposal made by the ld. A.R. for the appellant. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we have considered view and in the interest of justice, the assessee is allowed one more chance and directed to produce all the evidences before the CIT(A). She referred the Co-ordinate B Bench, Ahmadabad, decision in case of Smt. Heena Sharma in ITA No. IT(SS) A No. 197/Ahd/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied copy of the statement of affairs as on 31.03.2004 of the appellant HUF in which the amount of Rs.15,95,000/- had been shown as gifts received during the year in the liability side. It cannot be acceptable that the amount of Rs.5,95,000/- is not a gift. Even if, this is amount of Rs.5,95,000/- not a gift from Shri Rajendra Agrawal as per assessment order and received from Shri Rajesh S. Agrawal, then the stand taken now amounts to furnishing of additional evidence. The appellant had not satisfied the condition laid down in Clause (a) to (d) of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 46A and relied upon various case laws. The appellant did not make any application for admission of additional evidence before him. Similarly gift of Rs. 10 lacs received from Shri Shriram Agrawal, was evidenced by the uncertified copies of gift declaration by Shri Shriram Agrawal, which was not signed by anyone as gift accepted. If the details of two demand drafts of Rs.5 lacs each and illegible copy of pass port in which even the photograph of the so called donor in not visible. The appellant had failed to establish the identity, signature of donor Shri Shriram Agrawal. The love and affection with donee, occasion of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er held that the receipt of gift by banking channel is not sufficient to explain the gift as genuine and the donor is required to establish the identity of donors, proof of signature, occasion of gift and relationship of donors with done and lastly, the creditworthiness of the donors. He relied upon various decisions of various High courts. 6(i). Now the assessee is before us. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention on page nos. 1 to 16 and claimed that these evidences were filed before the A.O. The evidences placed on page nos. 61 to 63. However, ld. CIT D.R. claimed that these evidences were filed before the CIT(A), which has been considered by the ld. CIT(A) and he has dismissed the assessee's appeal. After perusal of all the evidences and order of the lower authorities, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) to consider all the evidence to decide the case as per law after giving the reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6(ii). In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In A.Y. 06-07, being aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). It was admitted by the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year under reference. 3. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that addition has properly made in the Assessment Order u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act." 9. The first ground of the assessee against confirming the addition of Rs. 20,000/- by the ld. CIT(A). The fact is that there was an addition in capital account in cash. The assessee was asked to explain this cash. No satisfactory explanation was given before the A.O. Thus, he made addition. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition by holding that household withdrawals were not sufficient in case of assessee. Thus, there cannot be saving to the extent of Rs. 20,000/-. The assessee has withdrawn Rs.6000/- per month. The bald statement of the appellant was not supported by any material or evidence. Therefore, the same was not acceptable. Thus, he confirmed the addition. The ld. Counsel for the appellant contended that this is small amount and all family members withdrew for household purposes and therefore, it is an explainable being a small amount and various withdrawals made by the family members. Being small amount, we delete the addition of Rs.20,000/- and reverse the order of the CIT(A). 10. Ground nos. 2 3 is against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming addition of Rs.13,54,000/- being gift received from various parties including gift received from brother Shri Rajendra S Shah. 4. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that addition of Rs.13,54,000/- made in the order passed u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) was correct and further erred in confirming the said gifts." 15. The first ground of the assessee's appeal is against confirming the addition of Rs.32,716/-. The A.O. observed that there was a capital addition of Rs.32,716/- in cash. Ld. A.O. gave reasonable opportunity of being heard on this issue. The assessee could not furnish any satisfactory explanation. Thus, he made addition of Rs. 32,716/- as undisclosed income of the assessee. The CIT(A) had also confirmed the addition by observing that the assessee before him had not explained the addition of Rs.32,716/-. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that these deposits were made out of various household withdrawal made by the family members during the year and argued that this cash in capital was explained before the lower authorities. The ld. CIT DR relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and prayed to confirm the addition. Be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
