9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1037X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 to prove the genuineness of the transaction. A perusal of the bank statement of the assessee showing receipt of funds, also showing the details of remittance received by the assessee in his NRE account on account of said gift. Documentary evidence to prove that the assessee and donor are both UK citizens and non-residents and thus the documentary evidence to support and substantiate documents generally applicable in India such as gift deeds were neither relevant nor executed between them. A signed letter of confirmation was submitted before the AO. Details of PAN of donor in India to prove his identity and credit worthiness, Details of investments held by Donor in India in Bharti Airtel which were sold for approximately Rs. 2150 crores in 2005 to prove his credit worthiness. The relationship between the assessee's mother and the donor was established with a joint reading of the said affidavit along with the copy of Indian passport of the assessee's mother Smt. Sumi Malik. Copy of assessment order u/s 147/143(3) framed by colleague of the Ld. AO himself duly scrutinizing and accepting the sale of investments by the donor in AY 2007-08. In the instant case, the sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O and DRP have grossly erred in making an addition u/s 69 in the hands of the appellant by doubting the source of funds used for investment, whereas the said source of funds were evidently and apparently received in a previous year and not in the subject assessment year, and such source has been duly examined and accepted in the said previous year. That the AO has further contradicted the directions of DRP clearly stating that the AO did not raise any objections or rejected the evidence filed by the appellant, by first accepting the additional evidence and thereafter denying the appellant any benefit of such evidence. 6. That without prejudice, even though the AO had proposed an addition of Rs. 3,06,00,000 in the draft assessment order, the AO has grossly erred in facts by making an addition of Rs. 3,38,50,000/ in the impugned assessment order. 7. That the AO and DRP have erred, in law and on facts and circumstances of the case, by treating the investment of Rs. 3,06,00,000/- made by the appellant as unexplained u/s 69 of the Act in ignorance of the documentary evidence submitted by the appellant, contrary to the fact that the AO was aware of the investments made by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings the assessee has not submitted any gift deed with respect to fund utilized for acquisition of properties. The undated letter of Mrs. Santosh Kataria is not specifying and relationship between assessee's mother and donor. Further, undated affidavit without notarized or sworn in before magistrate doesn't have evidentiary value. Further, assessee has not provided the bank statement of donor to establish identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction. The document submitted by the assessee is not sufficient to establish the relationship between the donor Mr. Raghuvinder Kumar Kataria and the assessee. The gift received by certain relatives is not taxable in the hands of done as per provisions of the section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In view of the above, assessee has made investment of Rs. 3,06,00,000/- for the purchase of immovable properties and sources of amount utilized for these transactions remained unexplained because no bank statement provided, failed to establish relationship with donor. Therefore, in my opinion, the value of investment deemed to be income of the assessee for AY 2017-18. In view of the above discussion, the sources ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Kumar Kataria, the Father' name is Shyant Sunder Kataria. 10. Before the ld. DRP the assessee submitted his rejoinder which is as under: Vide para 9(1) the AO has commented that there are 03 debit transactions of USD 1000042.26, 26118.26 and 1055692.26 appearing in the bank account of the donor on 21.12.2015. In this regard, we wish to submit that it is admitted and apparent from the assessee's bank statement filed during assessment proceedings that he received the gift of INR 6,87,22,815 being USD 1055650 (mentioned in narration) on 22.12.2015 as a single transfer from Mr. Raghuvinder Kumar Kataria. A copy of the assessee's bank statement already filed before the AO vide submission: dated 10.03.2022 clearly showed the said receipt on 22.12.2015. As against such receipt, the assessee furnished the bark statement of the donor which shows the transfer of USD 1055692.26 amongst other payments. As apparent from the instructions given by the donor to his banker for effecting such transfer the email written by the donor to his banker seeking his bank statement and confirmation duly signed by the donor the donor had transferred USD. 1055650 to his nephew as gift ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osh Kataria, name of the husband is SHAM SUNDER KATARIA . However, she herself has mentioned in the affidavit on plain paper dated nil submitted during assessment proceedings that name her husband is Late Sh. Shyam Sunder Kataria. Further, on perusal of the Gift deed dated 14.03.2019 executed by Mr. Raguvinder Kumar Kataria in favour of Mrs. Sumi Malik, W/o Mr. Harish Malik, it is mentioned that Mr. Raghuvinder Kataria is son of Late Sh. S.S. Kataria. The ld. DRP held that, in the PAN Card of the Raguvinder Kumar Kataria, the Father's name is Shyam Sunder Kataria but the AO has not contested the inadequacy or infirmity of the evidence filed by the assessee. 13. Holding thus, the panel directed the AO to incorporate the findings and observations contained in the remand report dated 22.09.2022 in the final order and decide the issue on consideration of these evidences and pass a speaking order. 14. The AO made the addition of Rs. 339,90,181 which is more than in the addition proposed of Rs. 306,00,000/- in the draft Assessment Order. 15. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 16. We have given credence to the following f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
