TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1022X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch huge amount from the sources disclosed, therefore, in our view, the authorities below are fully justified in making/confirming the disallowance in the amount of Rs. 6,00,000, found to be credited in the assessee's bank account - Decided against assessee. - - - - - Dated:- 8-7-2011 - Order The order of the Bench was delivered by U. B. S. Bedi (Judicial Member).-This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IX, Chennai dated February 18, 2010 relevant to the assessment year 2006-07, whereby, besides challenging confirmation of the addition of Rs. 6 lakhs as gift received from his father as unexplained investment under section 69, the assessee has also challenged confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 48,530 being 25 percent of the expenses incurred towards travelling and conveyance, telephone and mobile, vehicle maintenance, driver's salary, depreciation on car and consultancy charges as personal in nature. The facts indicate that the assessee has filed the return of income on September 25, 2006 declaring a total income of Rs. 2,81,930. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny. During the course o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssive or not reasonable or liable to be deleted, therefore, we do not find any justification to interfere with the conclusion as drawn by the authorities below, so, concurring with their findings in this regard, we confirm such disallowance while dismissing the plea as raised in the grounds of appeal being without any merits. As regards confirmation of second addition of Rs. 6 lakhs as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act for the gift/loan received from father of the assessee treating that he had no sufficient source to advance such amount, the assessee in appeal proceeding filed additional information and the same was forwarded to the Assessing Officer by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who was requested to furnish his comments. The Assessing Officer filed his remand report on December 15, 2009, copy of which was forwarded to the assessee, who filed reply to such remand report and the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), while incorporating the remand report of the Assessing Officer and reply of the assessee in later part of paragraph 5 of his order has concluded to dismiss this ground of appeal of the assessee as per paragraph 6 and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India for his marriage. At that time, out of the love and affection for his grandfather, he gifted his grandfather some money. This money along with savings from his income and receipts from his other children was available with his grandfather, Mr. Jayaramapillai." I have carefully considered the assessment order, the written submissions filed by the appellant, argument of the learned authorised representative and the remand report of the learned Assessing Officer. I find that generally, the Indian custom is that only elderly people extend gift to their grandson/granddaughter/son/daughter at the time of marriage. In this case, the grandson extended gift to his grandfather is not believable. Accordingly, the view of the Assessing Officer is found to be correct. Hence, I confirm the decision of the learned Assessing Officer in this issue and the appeal on this ground is dismissed. Still aggrieved, the assessee has came up in further appeal in this regard and while reiterating the grounds raised in appeal from grounds Nos. 1 to 5 has pleaded for deletion of the addition of Rs. 6,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to make/confirm the addition. So far as wrong mentioning or non-mentioning of relevant section is concerned, it settled position of law that it does not affect the order if it is otherwise proper and valid. Since, the assessee has miserably failed to substantiate the claim of having received Rs. 6,00,000 stated to be a gift, therefore, the addition was called for, which has rightly been made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals), whose action should be further confirmed. In order to counter the submissions of the learned Departmental representative, learned counsel for the assessee strongly pleaded that the learned Departmental representative is making some assumption without looking into the material available on record. Since the assessee's father had received gift of Rs. 3,00,000 from his grandson, who is serving in foreign country, when he came to India for his marriage and all necessary details and documents including passport copy, confirmatory letter, etc., were filed. The assessee's father was also having good source of income, therefore, probability of making gift of small amount of Rs. 6,00,000 should not have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed and in what mode it was kept has not been explained. Other than bluntly stating that a loan of Rs. 6,00,000 was given, the assessee has not furnished any evidence in support of his claim. When it was questioned about this, the assessee's representative could not furnish any concrete evidence in this regard. The money was said to be paid in cash. For substantiating the transaction, it is imperative that details regarding identity of the creditors, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions are to be established. But, in the instant case only identity of the creditor has been established, whereas neither creditworthiness of the creditor nor genuineness of the transactions has been proved. In this case, during the year under consideration, the assessee has received total sum of Rs.4,46,750 (Rs. 3,00,000 as fees from IFFCO General Insurance Co. and Rs. 1,46,750 as professional receipts from IRDA) out of which he has claimed Rs. 4,03,536 as expenses and offered only Rs. 43,214 as income from profession and nothing more than this. The hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P. Mohanakala [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC), while upholding the factual aspect considered by the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
