9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of assessee under section 56(2) (v) of the Act, without confronting the assessee hence we deem it appropriate to restore this part of ground to the file of ld CIT(A) to consider it afresh after giving the opportunity to the assessee and pass order in accordance with law. So far as, the cash deposit in United Bank of India & in HDFC Bank are concerned, the Revenue authority has not disputed the withdrawal of cash from her bank on earlier dates. The objection of Revenue is only that cash deposit varies at different occasions and frequent cash deposit itself establishing non-genuine character of the explanation offered. However, the contention of the assessee throughout the assessment proceedings and appellate stage was that, amount wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd further made the addition of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of ₹ 5,49,500/-,in assessment order dated 16.12.2008. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) but without any success. Thus, this second appeal is filed before us u/s. 253 of the Act. 3. We have heard the Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee and the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for Revenue and perused the material available on record. The Ld. AR for assessee argued that the assessee received gift of ₹ 10,00,000/- from his brother. Assessee furnished the copy of NRE Bank A/c in India from which ₹ 10,00,000/- was credited through cheque. The assessee also furnished the statement of account of donor s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the genuinity of the transaction. On the other hand the ld. DR for Revenue argued that the assessee has not filed any proof regarding marriage of her son. It was argued that, if the purpose of marriage was not fulfilled then the amount should have been deposited in the Bank immediately. The huge cash transaction was against of possible probabilities and thus, the findings of authorities below are in accordance with the provisions of law. 4. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and gone through the order of authorities below including the document placed on record. The AO while framing the assessment observed that assessee has received gift of ₹ 10,00,000/-, ₹ 3,00,000/- and ₹ 1,00,000/- from Shri G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 49,500/- on various dates in United Bank of India HDFC Bank, the assessee was asked to furnish source of cash transaction. The AO concluded that assessee is non-co-operative and did not offer any explanation. The source of cash transaction is not proved, thus, the entire deposit was treated u/s 68 of the Act. During the first appellate stage, the similar submission and contention were raised before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). While considering the contention of the assessee with regard to gift of ₹ 10,00,000/-, the ld. CIT(A) concluded that the donor/Gopal Chabria is residing at Dubai from last 24 years and settled there. The donor confirmed that a gift of ₹ 10,00,000/- was given to his cousin sister Miss. Rani Kalro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is that the amount was deposited just prior to issuance of cheque. Mere suspicion of the Revenue that the amount was deposited just before the issuance of cheque cannot be a ground for rejection of claim/gift where capacity of the donor and the identity is not in dispute. Thus, we delete the addition of ₹ 1,00,000/-. We have observed that the ld CIT(A) while disposing the appeal of the assessee, instead of examining the gift from the angel of section 68 of the Act, examined the same under section 56 of the Act. The ld CIT(A) concluded that cousin sister did not fall under the category of relative as per explanation attached with section 56(2) (v) and therefore the impugned gift is liable to be taxed under this section. As per o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
