9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 879X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue. - Decided against assessee. Unaccounted investment - Held that:- A categorical finding has been given by CIT(A) that during assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to establish the source of fund in the hands of his wife but no evidence of availability of funds in the hands of his wife was provided and therefore, the claim of the assessee that a double addition has been made is unsubstantiated. CIT(A) has given a categorical finding that the assessee has brought no evidence on record to show that investment was indeed made by his wife out of her funds because no funds are available with wife of the assessee. She is only a name lender to the transaction and on this basis, the addition was made substantive in hands of the assessee and he confirmed the same. Thus find no reason to interfere in the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue in assessment year 2005-06 also.- Decided against assessee. - ITA Nos.604 to 606/LKW/2014 - - - Dated:- 13-8-2015 - SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, JJ. For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Shri T. P. Singh, D. R. ORDER PER A. K. GARODIA, A. M. All thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sister, despite credible evidences been placed on record establishing the identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the gifts. Further this addition is made without any incriminating material being discovered during search. 3. Because the appellant has discharged his primary onus of establishing the genuineness of the gift by filing requisite evidences and the fact that gift is received from a relative, which fact has not been controverted or disbelieved. 4. Because the Ld.CIT (A), Kanpur, erred in law and on facts in sustaining the additions made u/s 68, resting his decisions on unsound reasons which are rather arbitrary, contrary to facts and circumstances of the case and deserves to be deleted. 5. Because the order passed by Ld. CIT (A), on this count is bad in law and deserves to be deleted. 6. We have considered the submissions of Learned D. R. of the Revenue, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the issue in dispute was decided by learned CIT(A) as per Para 7.2.11 to 7.2.14 of his order, which are reproduced below for the sake of ready reference:- 7.2.11 In the garb of gifts, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there was no relationship between the assessee and the donor and no occasion was also specified for making the gifts. He has also given a finding that no Evidence has been furnished during appeal proceeding to prove creditworthiness of the alleged donor. Hence, we find that the decision of CIT(A) is on various basis such as, no relationship between the donor and the assessee donnee and even if there is relation, then it is considered immorality to take money from sister as has been claimed in the present case. The third basis is that there is no occasion also for making the gift. The fourth basis is that the creditworthiness of the donor is not established. Considering all these facts, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. 8. Now we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2004- 05 in I. T. A. No.605/Lkw/2014. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. Because the Ld. CIT(A), Kanpur, erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition made by the AO while disbelieving the genuineness of the Gifts received by assessee, without the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... losed investment, in immovable property without duly appreciating the true and correct facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Because the Ld. CIT(A), Kanpur, erred in law and on facts in sustaining the impugned addition without appreciating that no addition on Protective basis can be made, unless there is substantive addition somewhere i. E. protective assessment cannot precede substantive addition and there is no Substantive Addition. 3. Because the Ld. CIT (A), Kanpur, erred in law and on facts in sustaining the impugned addition without appreciating that requisite satisfaction for commencing proceedings u/s 153C, with respect to the incriminating material found by the AO, which relates to other person, has commenced. Hence no addition could be made in the hands of the assessee. 4. Because the Ld. CIT (A), Kanpur, erred in law and on facts in sustaining the impugned addition without appreciating that the ceased document, do not belong to the assessee and further that the other person (wife of the assessee) has owned up the ownership of the assets described in the documents found during the search and hence the same cannot be added to the Income of the assessee. 5. Be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Immovable property owned by Smt. Pardeep Kaur, it affirmed by her that she had purchased one property at basement of A-111, Shankar Garden, New Delhi about 2 years back for consideration of ₹ 2,00,000/-. However, when confronted in question No. 10, with regard to investment of ₹ 8,61 lacs out of which 1 lac was paid as advance money, she had offered no comments. In view of above facts, it become clear that Smt. Pardeep Kaur is owner of property situated at A-111, Shankar Garden, New Delhi and amount of sale consideration is ₹ 8,67,000/- as against ₹ 2,00,000/- as stated by her in response to question No. 04. It is gathered from perusal of copies of balance sheet/statement of affairs of Smt. Pardeep Kaur for the financial year 2004-05 relating to assessment year 2005-06 in the assessment proceedings of the assesses, that she had not shown any investment under this head. Accordingly, the assessee was specifically asked to explain the source of investment of ₹ 1,00,000/- given as advance by the assessee to the vendor and remaining investment of ₹ 7.61 lacs in purchase of property at basement of A-111, Shankar Garden, New Delhi. In response th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13-14/296 dated 27.01.2014 that apparently, the persusal of records do not specify whether any assessment in the case for A. V. 2005-06 was completed under scrutiny on the basis of aforesaid information. 7 2 Discussion: 7.2.1 As is clear no addition was main the hands of wife of the assessee. During the proceedings before me the assessee was asked to establish source of funds in the hands of his wife. No evidence of availability of funds in the hands of his wife was provided, Thus the claim of the assessee that a double addition has been made is unsubstantiated. Assessee has brought no evidence on record to show that investment was indeed made by his wife out of her funds. As no funds are available with wife of the assessee she only becomes a name lender to the transaction. This addition is treated as substantive in hands of the assessee and therefore confirmed. 12.1 From the above paras from the order of CIT(A), it is seen that a categorical finding has been given by learned CIT(A) that during assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to establish the source of fund in the hands of his wife but no evidence of availability of funds in the hands of his wife was provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
