9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 806X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount during the demonetization period. When the AO made enquiries with the assessee with regard to the deposits in the bank, the assessee gave the reply that these deposits are from the gifts received by family members in India and furnished the gift certificates from the family members, though in plain paper. In such a situation, it was incumbent upon the assessing officer to make further enquiries using its power u/s 133(6)/131(1) with the family members to find out the truth of the matter. Once the assessee has furnished her explanation, the onus shifted to the assessing officer who failed to complete the process of enquiry into the identity and genuineness of transaction as well as creditworthiness of the donors. AO failed to discharge the onus shifted on him for establishing the bogus nature of cash gift and without conducting further enquiries, he made his own deduction from surmises and conjectures. We also find from the status of the family members of the assessee in India, that they are all doctors declaring substantial incomes in their ITRs which justifies the explanation for cash gifts given over a period of time from FY 2014-15 to FY2016-17. We note that all the abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred to pass order without any valid reasoning to this aspect 4. The Ld. AO was vide of the mark to ignore that gift certificates to the tune of Rs8,95,000/- issued in favour of the Appellant Family, by her parental family and further failed to seek confirmations from the said family members or independent inquiry U/s 133(6) or 131(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ). Further, the Ld. CIT-A also erred in law to ignore the said documents and preferred to dismiss the appeal without reasoning of the dismissal. 5. The Ld. AO and CIT-A erred in law and also to misread the facts of the case that the Appellant and her family members frequently visited India and accumulated cash derived from foreign currency exchanged to Indian Rupees, which has already been treated for Tax in UK and the same was, deposited during the demonetization period. Further, the Ld. CIT-A erred in law to ignore the submissions and preferred to dismiss the appeal without reasoning 6. The Ld. AO and CIT-A erred in applying provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case of Appellant and determining the tax-liability as per the aforesaid Section without specifying the Head of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid country as per Laws of United Kingdom of Great Britain. The assessee is practicing Medicine in the field of Gynecology in United Kingdom of Great Britain. During the year under consideration the assessee was deriving income from other sources and capital gains and there was no income from business or profession in India. 5. The case of the assessee was selected through CASS Module of selection for scrutiny u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] on the basis of huge foreign remittances in Form 15CA to low tax jurisdiction . The assessee had filed its ITR on 30/07/2017 at income of Rs. 2,62,590/-. Accordingly a notice u/s. 143(2) dated 21.08.2018 was issued to the assessee for 10.09.2018 to produce documentary evidence on which she might rely in support of her ITR. 6. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee received gifts amounting to Rs. 10,98,000/- and the said money was deposited during demonetization period i.e. in between 08.11.2016 to 31.12.2016. On perusal of bank statement of Savings bank A/c no. 1911410000155 with Federal Bank money was deposited as below: S. No. Date Deposit Amount of cash Bank ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said persons who are filing their tax returns regularly, considering it on a plain paper without making enquiries u/s 133(6) or 131(1). 12. The ld DR on the other hand relied on the orders of the assessing officer and the CIT (A) and reiterated the arguments of the AO that as the assessee was having NRO saving bank accounts in India and if such cash was received as cash gift during her stay in India she could have parked the money in the banks for her utilization during visits in India as stated. It was pointed out that the said amount could have been deposited in one go which has not been done. It suggests that the whole thing is an afterthought and a concocted story just to evade taxes in the grab of gifts. 13. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the assessee is a doctor and a resident of United Kingdom and regularly comes to India to visit her family. Her father, mother and brother and sister-in-law are also doctors of repute in India and having substantial income which is reflected in their return of income. With respect to the deposit in India in the Federal Bank, the assessee has stated that the fund deposited in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Dheeraj Thakran vs ITO Ward-1(4) (supra) applies to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In view of the above, we are inclined to accept the source of the cash deposits of Rs 10,88,000/- and accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 10,98,000/-. Grounds 1 to 5 and ground no. 9 and 10 raised by the assessee are allowed. 17. In the instant case, the assessee has taken a ground that the assessing officer has made the addition under section 115BBE, without specifying the head of Income or relevant section of the Act i.e., u/s 68, 69A, 69B or 69C rendering the assessment arbitrary and against principle of natural justice. From the facts narrated in the case, we find that the assessee was made aware of the nature of additions to be made in the show cause issued to the assessee. In such a situation, we are of the considered opinion that non mentioning of specific section of the Act would not render the assessment order arbitrary. We are fortified in our view by the jurisdictional Delhi High Court decision in the case of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -12 vs Smt. Sudha Loyalka rendered on 3 July, 2024 which held as under: 8. While Mr. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
