9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Vikram Singh Yadav, AM For the Assessee : Shri C. L. Yadav (C.A.) For the Revenue : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (ACIT) ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order of ld. CIT(A)-II, Jaipur dated 16.01.2020 for the assessment year 2010-11 wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Ld. CIT(Appeal)-2 erred in facts and law in confirming the addition of ₹ 5,00,000 without appreciating the facts. The addition was made on wrong assumption and contrary conjecture to the real facts. 2. The Ld. CIT(Appeal)-2 erred in appreciating the addition of ₹ 5,00,000 of unexplained source of marriage gifts received on the of marriage of the appellant from relatives. The gift received were pertain to the A.Y. 2009-10. The addition was illegal and was also contrary to the real facts and against the law therefore the addition kindly may be deleted and quested. 3. The Ld. CIT(Appeal)-2 failed to appreciate the findings of Ld. AO ward 5(2), Jaipur, in his remand report dated 09.10.2019, that The Affidavits produced in the shape of evidences submitted by the A.R. of the Assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th by the assessee, on his whims and fancy. As a matter of fact, the assessee had duly discharged the onus lay on her by providing the confirmations and ID of the donors. If the AO had any doubts, he could have made further enquiries independently but he chose not to do so and straight away went on to make the additions. 5. It was further submitted that before the ld. CIT(A), additional evidence in the form of gift deeds from the donors, viz. Smt. Asharfi Devi and Smt. Kampoori Devi were filed. Affidavit of Shri Bhagwan Das, who was made custodian of the cash gifts was also filed. The Ld.CIT(A), having powers co-terminus with that of AO, could have herself examined these documents by making further enquiries, but she chose to send these documents to the AO for remand report. The AO, after examining Shri Bhagwan Das, the custodian of cash gifts and satisfying himself, accepted the genuineness of the gifts made. But surprisingly the Ld.CIT(A) not concurring with the AO, held that only on the basis of affidavit, which is a self serving document, the gifts cannot be accepted as genuine. 6. It has been held by the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Shiv Dhooti Pearls Investm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... none of the Authorities considered it necessary to cross examine the deponent with reference to the statement made in the affidavit, it was not open to the Revenue in the circumstances to challenge the correctness of the statement made by the deponent made by the deponent in the affidavit. In other words, consequently the assessee was entitled assume that the authorities were satisfied with the affidavit as sufficient proof on this point. 8. It was submitted that the assessee would also like to rely on the decision on similar lines rendered by the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Silver Streak Trading Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 418. Further, the Allahabad High Court in the case of L. Sohanlal Gupta vs. CIT(1958) 33 ITR 786 was confronted with the question of rejection of affidavits. The Hon ble High Court held that rejection of affidavits is not justified unless assessee has either been cross examined or called upon to produce documentary evidence in support of affidavit sworn by him. 9. It was further submitted that the assessee would also like to place reliance on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Behari Lal Ram Charan Vs. ITO 1981 AIR 1585. Though t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt and remand report alongwith rejoinder. As per information available with the Assessing Officer that assessee had deposit cash of ₹ 11,00,000/- in her bank account with HDFC during the year under consideration but no return of income was filed. Therefore, case was reopened u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act 1961 response to this notice assessee filed her return of income on 29.04.2017 declaring total income of ₹ 1,90,460/- under the head salary from M/s. Neelkanth Publishers (P) Ltd. and interest from bank. During the assessment proceeding assessee filed copies of bank account statement showing two bank account, one is Punjab National Bank and other HDFC Bank Ltd. As per accounts statement filed by the assessee, assessee was deposited cash of ₹ 17,25,000/- during the year under consideration. Out of total ₹ 17,25,000/-, ₹ 5,00,000/- remain unverified and same was added to the total income of the assessee. 2.5.1 During the present proceedings AR of the assessee filed additional evidence under rule 46A and the same was sent to Assessing Officer for his comments. Vide remand report dated 21.10.2019, Assessing Officer stated that they cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
