9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 - Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member And Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri J.M.Patnaik , AR For the Revenue : Shri J.K.Lenka, DR ORDER PER C.M.GARG,JM This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A), Cuttack dated 22.3.2018 for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in absence of any gift deed executed by the donor, the ld CIT(A) is not justified in accepting the contentions of 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 ₹ 1,31, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned. 4. Being aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A) it was contended by the assessee that the assessee had received ₹ 50,00,000/-and ₹ 75,00,000/- from her husband as gift on 29.03.2014 and 31.03.2014 respectively. It was further contended that in course of assessment proceedings, necessary evidences with regard to identity, creditworthiness and I. T. Particular of the donor Sri Bijoy Kumar Rout were produced before the A.O but the A.O did not accept the evidences. The CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessee deleted the addition, observing as under: I have perused the assessment order of the A.O. and also the documents placed before me by the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rout, has merit and deserves to be accepted. Further, by establishing the identity and credit worthiness of the donor, the assessee has fully discharged the initial burden cast upon her by the Assessing Officer to establish the genuineness of the gift. The onus then shifted to the Assessing Officer to establish that the cash deposits in the assessee's account had an origin other than the current account of her husband Shri Bijoy Kumar Rout and that the money deposited in the assessee's account was not the same cash that was withdrawn by Shri Bijoy Kumar Rout from his current account no. 50173036800 in Allahabad Bank, Bhubaneswar on 29/03/2014 and 31/03/2014. This the A.O. has failed to do in his order and he has simply rejected the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 6,00,000/-is hereby deleted. 5. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the time of hearing, ld D.R. submitted that the assessee claimed before the A.O that she had received gift from her husband. In support of the gift, the assessee only submitted an affidavit sworn by the donor. He submitted that as per section 17 of the Registration Act,1908 gift of movable property can be effected either by delivery of movable property or by executing a gift deed signed by or on behalf of the donor and registered with the Sub-Registrar. Registration is mandatory in case of gift of movable property only when it is effected by a deed of gift signed by the donor. Since the assessee has failed to produce gift deed in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o application to the facts and circumstances of the present case because the impugned gift is not an immovable property requiring mandatory registration. Ld counsel vehemently pointed out that nowhere in section 17 of the Registration Act, it has been provided that in case of gift of movable property, registration is mandatory. Therefore, the AO was not justified and correct in calling upon the assessee to substantiate the transaction of gift between the appellant and her husband by way of submitting a registered gift deed. Ld counsel submitted that as per section 17 of Registration Act, gift can be effected either by delivery of movable property which has been completed in the present case by way of transferring or delivering of amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sit of ₹ 4,00,000/- on 5.8.2013 and ₹ 2,00,000/- on 30.8.2013 are the trade receipts which have been taken into consideration while filing the return u/s.44AD of the Act and hence, said amounts have been subsumed in the scheme of presumptive taxation and have already been taken into account while computing income u/s. 44AD of the Act and showing the same in the return of income. Ld counsel lastly submitted that there is no deficiency or mistake in the order of the ld CIT(A). Therefore, same may kindle be upheld by dismissing the grounds of the revenue. 10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. The Assessing Officer observed that the cash deposits in assessee s account was the gift received fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
