9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 941X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firmation filed by the assessee's husband because the same was in fact reiteration of the explanation which was already before the Assessing Officer. Thus the explanation rendered by the assessee has been unjustly rejected by the lower authorities and, therefore, the impugned addition made by invoking section 68 of the Act is unsustainable. We hold so. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee - I. T. A. No. 7127/Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 16-3-2016 - G. S. Pannu (Accountant Member) And Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) For the Appellant : Sanjeiv M. Shah For the Respondent : Pramod Nikale ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cern of the husband in the earlier years but it transpires that in the books of account of the husband, the said amount was shown as gift in the earlier years and, therefore, the books of account of the husband did not show any corresponding entry in the year under consideration. It was further asserted that it is a case of transaction between a husband and a wife, where by mistake the trans action amount has been shown as loan in the hands of the assessee instead of gift and in any case it does not affect the computation of income. The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation furnished by the assessee on the ground that the plea of the amount being treated as gift by husband was an afterthought and, therefore, it was an unexplained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eived during the year. It is also not in dispute that the said amount was received by the assessee from her husband in the earlier years. The only point of difference is that in the balance-sheet it has been portrayed as a loan received in the earlier years whereas in the books of account of her husband the said sum was not appearing in the balance-sheet as it was treated as a gift in the earlier years itself. We find that after the Assessing Officer rejected her explanation, the appellant furnished a gift confirmation before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) but the same has been outrightly rejected. In our considered opinion, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the gift confirmation filed by the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
