9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 explanation/additional furnished evidences during the course of appellate proceedings and further erred in confirming the same without affording opportunity to the appellant. 3. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that the addition of Rs.1,60,000/- was correctly made in the assessment order passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3)." IT(SS)A No. 546/Ahd/2010 (A.Y. 04-05) "1. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in not accepting that the additional evidences submitted during the course of appellate proceedings and further erred in not giving proper opportunity to the appellant. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) did not give any opportunity to the appellant for explaining the reasons for furnishing additional evidences. 2. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the gift of Rs.10,00,000/- received from Shriram Agrawal of Dubai and fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal 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 asked to file the confirmation, gift deed which was also not filed by the assessee. Thus, he made addition of Rs.1,60,000/- as unaccounted income of the assessee. 2(ii). In A.Y. 04-05, the assessee has shown gift of Rs.15,95,000/- and he was asked to explain the source of the gift with evidence from Rajendra Agrawal, USA and Shriram Agrawal. The assessee submitted his reply but it was held that the evidences submitted by the assessee are not sufficient to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the donor. Thus, he made addition of Rs. 15,95,000/- as unaccounted income. 2(iii). In A.Y. 05-06, the assessee has received gift of Rs. 12,62,000/-. The A.O. asked the assessee to explain the source and it was submitted that he had received gift of Rs.12,62,000/- from the following persons: Date Gift Rs. Source 15.07.04 1,25,000 Bh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idences 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/2009 for A.Y. 03-04 & Hon'ble Gujarat High Court decision in case of CIT vs. Heena Sharma in Tax Appeal No. 712 of 2012. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A). 3(ii). The appeal for A.Y. 01-02 is allowed for statistical purpose. 4. In A.Y. 02-03, being aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A). It was found that Rs.1,60,000/- credited in the account of HUF, was not a gift but amount credited in the account of HUF with M/s. Jamnadas Industries on various dates. The amount of Rs.1 lac transferred to M/s. Jamnadas Industries on 13.08.2001 (debited to the capital account of Karta). The amounts of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.10,000/- were transferred from Shah Shantilal Pannalal on 13.08.2001 and 27.03.2002. These amounts represented withdrawals from the firm. This was an additional evidence without any application of admission of additional evidence and therefore, ld. CIT(A) had not admitted. The evidence filed before the ld. CIT(A) were unsigned and uncertified. The assessee had not fulfilled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellant had failed to establish the identity, signature of donor Shri Shriram Agrawal. The love and affection with donee, occasion of gift and the creditworthiness of donor before A.O. as well as before him. It was further held that receipt of gift by banking donor is not sufficient to explain the gift as genuine. He relied upon various case laws for these purposes. Thus, he sustained the addition of Rs. 15,95,000/-. 5(i). Now the assessee is before us. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention on page no. 7 which was signed by Shri Shriram Agrawal, donor and received gift of Rs. 1,00,000/-, which was received through banking channel and on page no.8, which is acceptance of gift by Karta, namely, Rajesh S. Agrawal for appellant HUF for Rs. 10 lacs. Page nos. 9 & 10 are the copy of passport of Shri Shriram Agrawal. Page no.11 is the copy of two drafts for Rs. 5 lacs each in favour of R.S. Agrawal HUF. Rs. 5,95,000/- was received from Shri Rajesh S. Agrawal. From M/s. Jamnadas Industries for which he has filed copy of the assessee and argued that the sources of both the entries are explained. No addition is required. At the outset, ld. CIT D.R. relied upon the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 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 ld. Counsel for the appellant before the CIT(A) that these details could not be submitted before the A.O. The ld. Counsel had taken plea that it was out of cash balance of Jamnadas Industries, Indore, which was for Rs. 4,77,379/- out of which Rs.2,50,000/- were given. The ld. CIT(A) treated this explanation as additional evidence which was not allowed by him because condition spelt out in Clause (a) to (d) of sub-rule (1) of Rule-46A. He also relied upon various case laws and dismissed the assessee's appeal. 7 (i). Now the assessee is before us. Ld. Counsel argued that the ld. CIT(A) had not entertained the evidence submitted before him. She has drawn our attention on page no.6 and argued that the case of G. J. Industries is an auditable for which she filed a copy of audit report for A.Y. 06-07 alongwith copy of trading account, balance sheet which is a proprietary concern of HUF and argued that the source of capital credit is explained. Thus, in the interest of justice, the CIT(A) may be directed to consider the additional evidence. At the outset, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g 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 confirming the addition of Rs.8,72,000/- being gift received from Rajendra Shah, brother of the appellant. The A.O. found that the assessee has received gift of Rs.8,72,000/- from one Shri Rajendra S. Agrawal, USA. The assessee could not explain this gift. No evidence regarding confirmation of Rs.8,72,000/- was submitted by the assessee. Thus, he made addition of Rs.8,72,000/- as unaccounted income of the assessee. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition by observing that the credit of Rs. 8,72,000/- was appearing in the books of account. The assessee has to fulfill all the additions of Section 68 of the IT Act i.e. genuineness of the transaction, creditworthiness of the creditor and identity of the person. He relied upon various case laws on page nos. 3 & 4 and held that the gift received by the appellant is not explained. 11. Now the assessee is before us. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention on page nos. 14-16 & 18-20 and claimed that gifts were received from Shri Rajendra S. Agrawal, USA, who has confirmed the gifts were received from account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the lower authorities. The ld. CIT DR relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and prayed to confirm the addition. Being small amount and various withdrawal made by the family members for the household purposes, it is possible that to that extent the family members can save the amount. Thus, we delete the addition and reverse the order of the CIT(A). 16. The second, third & fourth ground of appeal is against confirming the addition of Rs.13,54,000/- being gift received from brother Shri Rajendra S Shah. The A.O. found that assessee has shown gift of Rs. 13,54,000/- from various persons. The A.O. gave reasonable opportunity of being heard on this issue. The appellant furnished the copy of gift deed, copy of return of income and bank statement of the donors. The A.O. did not find creditworthiness of the donor. The income tax returns filed by the donors are below taxable limit and bank balances were also not convincing to show the genuineness of the gift. Thus, he made addition of Rs.13,54,000/- as unaccounted income of the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) held that these gifts were arranged gifts. The gift declaration was filed in case of six out of eight cases. No gift declaration in case of Shy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
