9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee that the amounts deposited in cash in her bank account represented gift from her husband, Sri Bijay Kumar Rout thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 1,31,00,000/- made by the AO u/s.69 of the I.T.Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the express provision of section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, the ld CIT(A) is not justified in accepting the contentions of the assessee that the alleged gift of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- was received from her husband,." 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from supply of building of construction materials. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that there were cash deposits to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erving as under: "I have perused the assessment order of the A.O. and also the documents placed before me by the assessee's counsel. It is seen from the bank account of Mrs. Sudhansubala Rout (Allahabad Bank, A/c. no: 20628258336] that on 29/03/2014 and 31/03/2014 cash deposits of Rs. 50,00,000/- and Rs. 75,00,000/- respectively have been received. The counsel for the assessee has stated that the same represented a gift from the husband of the assessee, Shri Bijoy Kumar Rout. Now, in order to ascertain the genuineness of the gift, it is necessary to establish the identity and credit worthiness of the donor and also to ascertain the authenticity of the transaction. From the documents placed before me, it is seen that Shri Bijoy Kumar R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 31/03/2014. This the A.O. has failed to do in his order and he has simply rejected the valid explanation of the assessee without advancing any cogent reasons. Hence, out of the addition of Rs. 1,31,00,000/- made by the A.O., an amount of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- is deleted on account of the same being a genuine gift to the assessee from her husband, Shri Bijoy Kumar Rout. As regards the cash deposits of Rs. 4,00,000/- on 05/08/2013 and Rs. 2,00,000/- on 30/09/2013, it was explained that the assessee had filed the return of income for A.Y.- 2014-15 in form 1TR-4S declaring income on presumptive basis u/s. 44AD of the l.T. Act, 1961. Consequently, it was submitted that the receipt of Rs. 6,00,000/- in his bank account are subsumed in the scheme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee has failed to produce gift deed in respect of gift received from her husband, the A.O has rightly rejected the claim of the assessee and added the amount of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act. Therefore, the CIT(A) is not justified in accepting the claim of the assessee and deleting the addition. Further, on the second issue, ld DR submitted that the CIT(A) is also not correct in accepting the cash deposits of Rs. 4,00,000/- on 05.08.2013 and Rs. 2,00,000/- on 30.09.2013 totalling to Rs. 6,00,000/- being from trade receipts of the assessee in absence of any documentary evidence especially when the assessee does not maintain books of account. Therefore, Ld D.R. submitted that the order of the ld CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g or delivering of amount of gift from donor husband to donee wife, present assessee and transaction has been completed which requires no registration. Therefore, non-registration cannot be a ground for addition in the hands of the assessee. 8. Ld A.R. strenuously contended that there is no provision in the Income tax Act, which requires the assessee to substantiate transaction of gift of movable property from husband to wife by way of registered gift deed. Moreover, once substance of Gift from husband to wife has been accepted by the AO and ld CIT(A) u/s. 56 of the Income tax Act,, then provisions of section 69 of the Act cannot be pressed into service against the assessee treating the same as unexplained investment in the hands of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from her husband on different dates and the AO did not accept the transaction as genuine and made addition of Rs. 1,31,00,000/- treating the same as unexplained cash deposits. The ld CIT(A) on perusal of the current account of Sri Bijoy Kumar Rout, found that there were debit entries of Rs. 54,00,000/- and Rs. 75,00,000/- on 29.03.2014 and 31.03.2014 respectively. On the same day there were credit entries of Rs. 50,00,000/- and Rs. 75,00,000/-respectively in the assessee's account maintained in Allahabad Bank. The CIT(A) further held that the A.O has simply rejected the valid explanation of the assessee without advancing any cogent reasons. Accordingly, he deleted an addition of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- out of the total addition of Rs. 1,31,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
