Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 144 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 69 - Difference in amount in capital account – Investment in house property – Held that:- The assessee has replied before the AO that the flat was purchased in the A.Y. 1998-99 by Shri Surendra Uppal where she has been living since then and it is seen that at the time of search Sh. Surendera Uppal and the assessee were found living at the same address - the assessee included this amount in the Balance Sheet under the “Fixed Assest” schedule forming part of the Balance Sheet - this specific addition to Capital was not depicted as addition to capital separately – thus, the payment for the flat was made in 1998-99 AY and nothing has been placed by the revenue to controvert these facts – Decided against revenue. Unexplained household expenses – Held that:- The averments made and the findings recorded have not been rebutted by the revenue on facts by any evidence whatsoever - the confirmation by the mother of assessee who was a retired Doctor from Central Government Health Services who also confirms the fact that the daughters of the assessee were residing with her all the expenses for telephone, electricity and household expenses for the assessee were being met by her - The education expenses of the daughters of the assessee it is seen were met by the ex-husband of the assessee and the assessee has placed details of alimony settlement monies given by her ex-husband and his family along with copy of affidavit of the ex-husband - None of these have been rebutted by the Revenue – the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against revenue. Unexplained gift - Genuineness of gift – Held that:- CIT(A) rightly was of the view that the order does not warrant any interference - Copy of the gift deed along with copy of the bank statement of the donor reflecting the gift made by Sh. Surendra Uppal is available - nothing has been placed to controvert the finding that the gift has been made by Shri Surendra Uppal on account of love and affection for the assessee with whom admittedly he was living - The fact that he had been living with the assessee over the years has been admitted by Shri Surendra Uppal in his assessment proceedings over the years prior to the search is available on record - This has not been rebutted by the Revenue – the contention of the revenue cannot be accepted that there ought to have been specific reason for making the gift is of no relevance as admittedly the assessee who has received a flat from Shri Surendra Uppal in 1998 which is registered in her name in the year under consideration was offered professional and consultation fees relatively of very small amount for interior decoration and consultancy does not require the existence of any specific occasion for which a gift of ₹ 25 lacs should be made as affection for the assessee over the years is evident on record – Decided against revenue.
|