9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1012X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances of the case. Further the submission of assessee that her husband was suffering from cancer and for the treatment, a lot of medical expenses was required to be incurred. The aforesaid contention of assessee has not been found to be false. It is a general practice followed that in time of medical emergencies, the near and dear ones of the family, close friends and relatives generally pool their resources to help the family in need. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and following the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Mehta Parikh Co. vs., CIT (supra) gifts received by the assessee from her brother and sister cannot be added as unexplained income. We, therefore, direct the deletio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngly, A.O. issued notice electronically and manually through postal service under section 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 12.07.2019 along with questionnaire. In response to the notice issued under section 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the assessee filed her reply contending inter alia, that she is having joint A/c with her husband in Federal Bank, Corporation Bank and Punjab and National Bank and since her husband is suffering with Blood Cancer, she deposited a sum of Rs.12,29,500/- in the aforementioned banks for meeting his medical expenses. The source of deposits was stated to be out of rental income of her husband from the property situated at Quila Road, Rohtak @ Rs.29,000/- per month i.e., for 12 months 29,000 x. 12 = Rs.3,48,000, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce, the assessment as such may be quashed. 3. That the Honorable CIT(A)-NFAC has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition under section 69A of Rs.3,55,000.00 on illegal an untenable grounds. Hence, the addition as such may be deleted. 4. Before me, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee at the outset submitted that though the assessee has raised several grounds, but the sole grievance of the assessee is with reference to addition of Rs.3,55,000/- as income of assessee. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that since the husband of the assessee was suffering from cancer, Mr. Rakesh Jain, the brother of the assessee had gifted Rs.1,75,000/- and Rs.1,80,000/- was given by Mrs. Kamlesh Devi, sister of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontroverted then it has to be accepted as truth. Since, the A.O. has not controverted to the contents of the affidavit filed by Mrs. Kamlesh Devi and Sh. Rakesh Jain which were filed in response to notice under section 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities. 6. I have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties and perused the material on record. I find that in the instant case the A.O. made an addition of Rs.3,55,000/- by treating gifted amount of Rs.1,80,000/- and Rs.1,75,000/- from Mrs. Kamlesh Devi and Sh. Rakesh Jain respectively as une ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
