9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted to the assessee and whether they had any capacity of giving such huge amount of gift to the assessee. Thus, the assessee failed to prove the basic ingredients of genuineness of gifts in the matter. It, therefore, appears that the assessee when cornered by the Revenue Department came up with an afterthought story to explain investment in property through the gifts from the relatives. Therefore, it is clear that gifts in the matter are not genuine. Gifts are arranged affairs of the assessee. The assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of the donors and genuineness of the gifts in the matter. The additions were rightly made by the authorities below. Addition of difference on account of investment in cost of construction of banquet hall as per DVO report - Held that:- Restore this issue to the file of A.O. with a direction to apply UP PWD rates for the purpose of ascertaining the cost of construction of investment in construction of banquet hall. The A.O. shall re-decide this issue after giving reasonable, sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ground No.4 of appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA.No.348, 347 And 349 /Del. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00 ( iv) Loan from bank ₹ 6,50,000 ( v) Gift received from relatives Rs.13,00,000 3.1. The assessee did not make any response with regard to maintenance of the books of account for construction of banquet hall. According to the A.O. the assessee has made investment in the land at ₹ 18,03,000 and the investment in construction of banquet hall was claimed at ₹ 28 lakhs. Thus, the total investment on purchase of land and construction of banquet hall aggregated to ₹ 46,03,000. The assessee had neither disclosed the investment of ₹ 46,03,000 to the department nor any return of income was filed till the date of issue of notice under section 142(1) of the Act. 3.2. Regarding claim of source of investment from agricultural income at ₹ 3 lakhs, it was gathered by the A.O. that assessee had shown only agricultural holdings of 20 bigas. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the A.O. required the assessee to file copy of khatauni. Further, the A.O. also confronted the assessee of the fact that in the return of income fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... genuineness of the gifts was not found genuine by the A.O. The A.O. asked the assessee to explain why the gifts of ₹ 13 lakhs may not be treated as unexplained and added to the income of assessee. 5.2. It was contended by the assessee that gifts were received from the aforesaid persons who were real brother and sons of real another brothers. Copies of their land holdings and along with affidavits were furnished before the A.O. It was submitted that the donors in their statements on oath confirmed giving gifts to the assessee. The A.O. however, rejected the contention of assessee because investment in property was not disclosed to the department. Gifts were not voluntarily disclosed to the department. The assessee admitted investment in property only after issue of notice under section 142(1) of the Act. Th A.O. made addition of ₹ 13 lakhs under section 69 of the I.T. Act. 5.3. As regards addition of ₹ 3 lakhs, assessee contended before the Ld. CIT(A) the same facts as were explained before the A.O. on which remand report was called for from the A.O. in which A.O. explained that assessee failed to disclose agriculture income in the return of income. The asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure income by the assessee in assessment year under appeal. No agriculture income was shown in the return of income filed on issue of notice under section 142(1) of the Act. The assessee did not have any evidence of accumulation of past agriculture income. Merely because assessee was holding agricultural land holdings of 20 bigas would not prove that assessee earned any agricultural income or has any past savings so that to make any investment in the property. In the absence of any evidence on record, no further interference is called for in the matter. The Ld. CIT(A) has already given sufficient benefit of ₹ 55,000 to the assessee. This ground No.2 of appeal of assessee is dismissed. 7. On ground No.3, the assessee challenged the addition of ₹ 1,50,000 and ₹ 72,000 on account of gifts received from Shri Karan Singh Tyagi and Shri Mukesh Tyagi. The assessee submitted that affidavits of the donors along with their bank accounts have been filed and their statements have been recorded by the A.O. in which they have confirmed giving of gifts to the assessee. However, both the donors have failed to specify the date-wise amount paid during the examination/recording o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 3,24,467 being difference on account of investment in cost of construction of banquet hall as per DVO report. The assessee pleaded before the Ld. CIT(A) that for the purpose of ascertaining the value of construction, rates of UP PWD may be applied, which authorities below have failed to apply in the matter. Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon the decision of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raj Kumar182 ITR 436 in which the Tribunal while fixing the cost of construction, has taken into consideration various factors i.e., the rates to be applied for the purpose of estimation of cost of construction and applied UP PWD rate and not the Centre PWD rates. The Hon ble High Court dismissed the Reference Application. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the matter may be remanded to the A.O. for applying the UP PWD rates. 8.1. Considering the facts of the case in the light of decision of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raj Kumar (supra), I set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore this issue to the file of A.O. with a direction to apply UP PWD rates for the purpose of ascertaining the cost of constructio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hallenged the addition of ₹ 80,100 out of addition of ₹ 2,34,000. Regarding addition of ₹ 2,34,000, assessee has contended that in the year under reference, she had cash accumulation of ₹ 2,03,900 out of dairy business, bank interest, family pension, agriculture income and past savings, out of which ₹ 50,000 was spent for house hold purpose. Therefore, balance amount of ₹ 1,53,900 remained in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) gave benefit to assessee at ₹ 1,53,900 and made the addition of ₹ 80,100. 13.1. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee did not produce any evidence of source to explain the addition of ₹ 80,100. Even assessee did not explain this addition before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, in the absence of any evidence, the addition of ₹ 80,100 is confirmed. This ground No.4 of appeal of assessee is dismissed. 14. On ground No.5, the assessee challenged the addition of ₹ 4,63,906 being difference on account of investment in cost of construction of banquet hall as per DVO report. 14.1. In A.Y. 2008-2009, it is directed that UP PWD rate may be applied for ascertaining the cost of construction. Following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
