9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 505X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 10.6.2004 showing income at Rs. 1,10,860/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act, and then the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) wherein disallowance on account of bogus gift of Rs. 3,51,000/-, unexplained credit entries of Rs. 1,05,000/- and Rs. 55,000/- were being added. The AO also made further disallowance under short/long term capital gain and thereby determined total income at Rs. 6,21,859/-. The above disallowances were challenged by the assessee before the ld.CIT(A) and then to ITAT. The Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.115/Rjt/2011 dated 21.6.2013 restored the following grounds to the file of ld.CIT(A) for reconsideration: "1. The ld.CIT(A) erred in la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed of the appeal with the available material on record. The findings of the ld.CIT(A) are as follows: "3.0 Appellant has claimed gift of Rs. 3,35,000/- in the relevant previous year from one Shri Amulbhai Chimanlal Kamdar. Appellant has claimed Shri Kamdar to be her brother, The A.O, has recorded statement of Shri Karndar and has also examined the bank statement of Shri Kamdar. It had been clearly noted by the A.O. that contrary to her claim. Shri Kamdar is not brother of appellant; rather he had failed to define his relationship with appellant. The fact that Shri Kamdar had no commensurate income (in his return) has also been brought out by AO. Most significantly, the gift of Rs. 3,51,000/- through cheque has been made possible only by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e hearing of the appeal was fixed on 29-1-2018 and the appeal order is passed exprte on 16-3-2018. During this long gap of about 45 days the Ld. CIT(A) preferred not to give any further opportunity following the principals of natural justice as laid down by the Hon. Supreme Court and decide the appeal exparte. The order needs cancellation. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming order passed by the Ld. A.O. making addition of Rs. 3,51,000/-. The same needs cancellation. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming order passed by the Ld. A.O. making addition of Rs. 1,05,000/-. The same needs cancellation. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming order passed by the Ld. A.O. making add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T(A) and the Tribunal. In the first ground of appeal, the ITAT remanded the matter back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for verification of gifts of Rs. 3,51,000/- unexplained cash credit of Rs. 1,05,000/- and another unexplained credit entry of Rs. 55,000/- relating to the assessment year 2004-05. The assessee claimed gift of Rs. 3,51,000/- from one Shri Amulbhai Chimanlal Kamdar who said to be her brother. The ld.AO has recorded statement of Shri Kamdar and also examined his bank statement. The AO has noted that Shri Kamdar was not brother of the assessee and he failed to define his relationship with the assessee. Shri Kamdar had no commensurate income to make a gift of Rs. 3,51,000/- and he could not explain source of such gifts. As the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
