9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertain to the assessment year 2004-05. Since these appeals belong to the same assessee, they are clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience. ITA No.3832/Mum/2012 2. The issue raised in the first grounds of appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs. 23,78,000/- as made by the AO under section 68 of the Income Tax act, 1961 in the assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act even though there was no incriminating material or evidence for doubting the genuineness of the gift found or seized during the course of search. 3. Facts in brief are that a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 17.1.2008 on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as under : "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ild.AO erred in making addition of Rs. 23,78,000/- on account of gift received and disallowance of Rs. 1,08,238/- u/ s.14A in the assessment u/s 153A of the IT Act as no relevant or incriminating material or evidence was found or seized during the course of search reflecting undisclosed income. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 23,78,000/- and disallowance of Rs. 1,08,238/- by the AO being without any basis deserves to be deleted" 4. The FAA dismissed the legal ground raised by the assessee by holding that certain documents were found with regard to alleged gift and statement was recorded of the appellant's husband du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts such as CIT V/s Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. [2015] 374 ITR 645 (Bombay) and CIT v.Anil Kumar Bhatia [2013] 352 ITR 493 (Delhi) and submitted that ratio laid down by the above mentioned decisions be followed in the assessee's case and the addition made by the AO u/s 153A r.w.section 143(3) be deleted. On the contrary, the ld.DR heavily relied on the orders of authorities below. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed before us including the impugned orders and case law relied upon by the assessee. We find from the record that the return of income was filed on 29.10.2004 whereas the search was conducted on 17.1.2008 meaning thereby the assessee for the assessment year 2004-05 had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee had received a sum of Rs. 50.00 lakhs as gift from a Dubai National, who happened to be his non-relative. This gift amount had already been declared in the original return of income. In sec. 153A proceedings, the assessing officer assessed the above said gift of Rs. 50.00 lakhs as income of the assessee and the same was also confirmed by Ld CIT(A). 4. Before us, the Ld A.R submitted that the department did not unearth any incriminating material during the course of assessment proceeding in order to show that the impugned gift amount was bogus one or the assessee had funded the same. He submitted that, in the absence of any incriminating material, the assessing officer was not entitled to re-examine the concluded matters in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Satish L Babladi in ITA No.1732 & 2109/Mum/2010 and also the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan rendered in the case of Chain Sukh Rathi Vs. CIT (270 ITR 368) and submitted that the proceedings initiated u/s 153A was valid and the AO was justified in making the addition relating to the gift. 6. The ld A.R, however, placed reliance on the following decisions to support his legal proposition that the concluded assessments should not be disturbed in the absence of any incriminating material:- (a) CIT Vs. M/s Murli Agro Products Ltd (ITA No.36 of 2009 dated 29-10-2010) (b) Smt Lakshmi Singh Vs. DCIT (ITA No.113/PNJ/2014 dated 09-12-2014) 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The admitted fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee, i.e., the assessing officer is not entitled to disturb the concluded assessments in the absence of any incriminating material. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the assessment of gift amount of Rs. 50.00 lakhs in this year. We notice that the assessee has raised this legal ground before the Ld CIT(A), but the first appellate authority has declined to admit the same. In our view, the action of Ld CIT(A) in rejecting the legal ground is not justified. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) and direct the assessing officer to delete the addition of Rs. 50.00 lakhs relating to the gift receipt." Similarly, in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
