9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e transaction, therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned CIT (A) received as gift from her mother-in-law, in our opinion, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order of the learned CIT (A) on this issue is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. Addition being the share of profit earned by the assessee from the partnership firm - Share of profit is exempt u/s 10(2A) of the I.T. Act and it cannot be added to the total income of the assessee. Therefore, the order of the learned CIT (A) sustaining the addition being the share of profit from the partnership firm being not in accordance with law is set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition. Appeal of assessee allowed. - ITA No.39/Hyd/2022 - - - Dated:- 28-7-2022 - Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Nishitha Mandalaywala For the Revenue : Shri Kumar Aditya, DR ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, A.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.01.2022 of the learned CIT (A)-10, Hyderabad relating to A.Y.2016-17. 2. Facts of the case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d report of the Assessing Officer and the rejoinder of the assessee to such remand report, the learned CIT (A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. While doing so, she noted that Ms. Nirmala Jayanarayan Rathi is the mother-in-law of the assessee and has submitted return of income with the I.T. Deptt. for the A.Y 2014-15 wherein the gross total income was declared at Rs.33,24,747/- and the income tax was paid at Rs.8,57,821/-. Similarly, for the A.Y 2015-16 she has declared the gross total income at Rs.35,40,261/-and income tax paid was at Rs.9,18,536/-. For the A.Y 2016-17, the donor has submitted her return of income declaring the gross total income at Rs.31,85,436/- and income tax paid was at Rs.8,10,794/-. The assessee has received an amount of Rs.1.00 crore i.e., Rs.20.00 lakhs each via transfer (5 times) on 14.10.2015 which were sent to Smt.Aarthi Rathi. Further Smt. Nirmala Jayanarayn Rathi is also a non-resident. The bank statement furnished by the assessee shows that the dates mentioned in the gift deed and the date mentioned in the bank statement are different. 4.1 She further noted that the company M/s. Alumilite Architecturals Pvt. Ltd, has also declared income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellant prays before this Hon'ble Tribunal to delete the additions made and confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A) and thus render justice to the appellant. 7. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the learned CIT (A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us by both sides. We find the assessee in the instant case has claimed an amount of Rs.1.00 crore being the gift received from her mother-in-law and Rs.1,00,419/- as share of profit from the partnership firm namely Shree Packaging Corporation where she is a partner as exempt. Sine the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer in the ex-parte order passed by him made addition of Rs.1,01,00,419/- to the returned income of Rs.1,27,330/-. We find before the learned CIT (A), the assessee filed certain additional evidences which were accepted by the learned CIT (A) and the additional evidences along with the submissions made by assessee from time to time were forwarded to the Assessing Officer who gave two remand reports. We find the learned CIT (A) after considering the rem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and genuineness of the transaction. Merely because there is difference between the dates in the bank statement and the date of cheque in the gift deed, the same cannot be a ground to disbelieve the gift since the cheques were presented after few days of receipt of the gift and therefore, there were minor difference in the date of cheque mentioned in the gift deed and the date of clearance in the bank statement. Once the assessee has received the gift, it is immaterial to know the purpose for which the amount has been spent or why the amount is transferred to Ms. Manju Damani who is also a partner in Shree Packaging Corporation. 9. We find some force in the above argument of the learned Counsel for the assessee. The identity of Smt. Nirmala Jai Narayan Rathi is established since she is the mother-in-law of the assessee and also her PAN and IT returns etc., were furnished before the learned CIT (A) who in her order had given the details of her income filed in the return of income: 9, In light of the above background, the fact of the case are analysed below: (a) Nirmala Jai Narayan Rathi is the mother-in-law of the appellant and has returned gross total income for 2014-15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
