9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 621X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not accepting the gifts received from the "close relatives" as defined in the proviso of section 56(2)(vi) of the 1. T. Act, during the previous year relevant to the Asst. year under consideration without considering the fact and merits of the case. The Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also erred in not understanding the business related books of accounts submitted during assessment proceedings, looking the personal non-taxable transaction into the same with a finding of the said gifts that have not been reflected in the books of Accounts without considering the fact and merits of the case. The Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also erred in not giving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee in foreign currency, as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 4. During the assessment proceedings, it was found by the AO that Assessee has made cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 13,54,000/- in his bank account, during the year under consideration. On inquiry with the Assessee, it was replied that the bank account of the Assessee was being operated by the wife of the assessee and his wife had received gifts, in dollars, from their close relatives, who are residents of Abu Dhabi and the same amount was deposited in the bank account. It was further submitted that gifts were received from the close relatives and therefore, these were exempt in view of provisions of section 56(2)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. It was furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) that interest income of Rs. 12,570/- raised during the relevant period from the impugned bank account was included in computation of income of the assessee's wife since this account was primarily operated by her. After considering the submissions of the Assessee, Ld. CIT(A) rejected the same and confirmed the addition made by the AO. 6. Before us, Ld. DR has argued the matter, relying upon the orders of the lowers authorities and requested for confirming the addition made by the AO. On the other hand, assessee has placed on record his written submissions. 7. We have gone through the orders of lower authorities and written submissions filed by the assessee. The AO had passed a detailed order while making the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The AO has rightly taken cognizance of the fact that the so called gifts were never credited to the capital account of the appellant. No doubt the appellant has been running proprietary business in the name of MIG travels but it does not preclude the appellant from furnishing relevant particulars of income while filing the return by including all the personal transactions also. Even for a Moment it is accepted that the appellant has received gifts from NRI relatives in foreign exchange, the crucial link as to how the, said dollars were converted into Indian rupees is missing in the given set of facts. The appellant is not legally authorized to convert the foreign exchange in a channel other than a bank/authorized foreign exchange dealer. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
