GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (8) TMI 879 - ITAT LUCKNOW

2015 (8) TMI 879 - ITAT LUCKNOW - TMI - Unaccounted gifts - Held that:- A clear and categorical finding has been given by CIT(A) that the gift was stated to be made by an unrelated donor of the assessee (claimed to be cousin sister) but no evidence of relationship is brought on record. He has also noted that in Punjabis, it is considered an immorality to take money from sister. He has also noted that there was no relationship between the assessee and the donor and no occasion was also specified .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

h basis is that the creditworthiness of the donor is not established. Considering all these facts, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue. - Decided against assessee.

Unaccounted investment - Held that:- A categorical finding has been given by CIT(A) that during assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to establish the source of fund in the hands of his wife but no evidence of availability of funds in the hands of his wife was provided and th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

order of learned CIT(A) on this issue in assessment year 2005-06 also.- Decided against assessee. - ITA Nos.604 to 606/LKW/2014 - Dated:- 13-8-2015 - SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, JJ. For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Shri T. P. Singh, D. R. ORDER PER A. K. GARODIA, A. M. All these three appeals are filed by the assessee, which are directed against three separate orders of learned CIT(A)-I, Kanpur all dated 22/04/2014 for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06. All t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

06/2015 23/07/2015 3. On this date i. E. on 23/07/2015. none appeared on behalf of the assessee and there is no request for adjournment. Considering this fact that the adjournment was already allowed to the assessee on several occasions and Learned A. R. of the assessee is seeking adjournment on each of such occasions on some pretext or other, we do not find any justifiable reason for granting any further adjournment, that too without even a request for adjournment from the assessee or Learned A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eived by assessee, without there being any incriminating material or evidence discovered during the search operations. Further, the Ld. CIT(A), has himself deleted certain other additions made by the AO, where there was no incriminating material discovered during search operation. 2. Because the Ld.CIT(A), Kanpur, erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- on account of gifts received by the appellant, from his sister, despite credible evidences been placed on rec .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ons made u/s 68, resting his decisions on unsound reasons which are rather arbitrary, contrary to facts and circumstances of the case and deserves to be deleted. 5. Because the order passed by Ld. CIT (A), on this count is bad in law and deserves to be deleted. 6. We have considered the submissions of Learned D. R. of the Revenue, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the issue in dispute was decided by learned CIT(A) as per P .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

re the strangers, to act as a donor and shower bounty of gifts on such donees. There is patently a lack of blood family relationship and also or absence of occasion, for making such gifts and hence such considerations are significant and corroborative considerations, clearly pointing to the nongenuineness of the gift transactions. 7.2.12 I have examined the facts & in tight of the statement recorded by me & also in light of the material and precedent relied upon, I find that in the prese .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

genuine a purely arranged entries. This aspect remains unconrroverted before me also. The Hon'ble High Court held in the case of Subhash Chander Sekhri V DCIT (2007) 290 TR 300 (P&H) that : In the absence of no evidence to show that alleged gifts were received on the occasion of marriage in family or other happy occasions, from relatives, the Tribunal's findings in confirming such additions cannot be held as perverse. 7.2.13 Under the circumstances, the inference made by the assessin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ter. He has also noted that there was no relationship between the assessee and the donor and no occasion was also specified for making the gifts. He has also given a finding that no Evidence has been furnished during appeal proceeding to prove creditworthiness of the alleged donor. Hence, we find that the decision of CIT(A) is on various basis such as, no relationship between the donor and the assessee donnee and even if there is relation, then it is considered immorality to take money from sist .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aised the following grounds: 1. Because the Ld. CIT(A), Kanpur, erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition made by the AO while disbelieving the genuineness of the Gifts received by assessee, without there being any incriminating material or evidence discovered during the search operations. Further, the Ld. CIT(A), has himself deleted certain other additions made by the AO, where there was no incriminating material discovered during search operation. 2. Because the Ld.CIT(A), Kanpur, e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

act that gift is received from a relative, which fact has not been controverted or disbelieved. 4. Because the Ld.CIT(A), Kanpur, erred in law and on facts in sustaining the additions made u/s 68, resting his decisions on unsound reasons which are rather arbitrary, contrary to facts and circumstances of the case and deserves to be deleted. 5. Because the order passed by Ld. CIT(A), on this count is bad in law and deserves to be deleted. 9. We find that in this year also, the facts and decision o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

with our decision for assessment year 2003-04, we decline to interfere in the order of learned CIT(A) for assessment year 2004- 05 also. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. 11. Now we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2005- 06 in I. T. A. No.606/Lkw/2014. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. Because the Ld. CIT(A), Kanpur, erred in law and on facts in confirming the "PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT" made in the hands .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

addition and there is no Substantive Addition. 3. Because the Ld. CIT (A), Kanpur, erred in law and on facts in sustaining the impugned addition without appreciating that requisite satisfaction for commencing proceedings u/s 153C, with respect to the incriminating material found by the AO, which relates to other person, has commenced. Hence no addition could be made in the hands of the assessee. 4. Because the Ld. CIT (A), Kanpur, erred in law and on facts in sustaining the impugned addition wi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he addition be sustained in the hands of the assessee and that The Rules of Equity are unknown to Tax Laws. 6. Because the order passed by Ld. CIT(A), on this count is bad in law. 12. We have considered the submissions of the learned DR of the revenue. We find that the issue in dispute was decided by learned CIT(A) as per Para 7 to 7.2.1 of his order, which are reproduced below for the sake of ready reference:- 7. Ground No.6 to 7: Addition of ₹ 8,73,000/- on protective basis- 7.1 In this .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er seized stamp papers & papers titled " Agreement to Sell", affidavit General power of attorney, receipt and possession letter shows that Smt. Pardeep Kaur wife of the assessee had purchased the said property for a consideration of ₹ 5,00,000/-. A "Receipt" seized at page No. 10 of annexure A-l to the panchnama dated 01.09.2005 contains following: 'Received ₹ 1,00,000/- (One lac only) from Shri Jitender Singh s/o Shri Mukhtar Singh R/O G-144, Vikaspuri, N .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

0,000/- to vendor Shri S P Chopra. During the course of search, the statement of Smt. Pardeep Kaur, wife of the assessee was recorded on 01.09.2005. In response to question No. 04 of statement, regarding investment in Immovable property owned by Smt. Pardeep Kaur, it affirmed by her that she had purchased one property at basement of A-111, Shankar Garden, New Delhi about 2 years back for consideration of ₹ 2,00,000/-. However, when confronted in question No. 10, with regard to investment o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sessment year 2005-06 in the assessment proceedings of the assesses, that she had not shown any investment under this head. Accordingly, the assessee was specifically asked to explain the source of investment of ₹ 1,00,000/- given as advance by the assessee to the vendor and remaining investment of ₹ 7.61 lacs in purchase of property at basement of A-111, Shankar Garden, New Delhi. In response the assessee filed reply stating therein that total consideration amount was fixed at ͅ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

3.07.2004 was a/so in respect of property No. A-111 Shankar Garden meaning thereby that transaction was in respect of same property. It is also noticed that receipt was written prior to date of execution of sale deed. Therefore, investment of ₹ 8,61,000/- + ₹ 12,000/- (cost of stamp paper ) aggregating to ₹ 8,73,000/- is considered to unexplained investment in purchase of property in the name of Smt. Pardeep Kaur. Since, it is not clear whether the assessee had made investment .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd prayed to be deleted. 7.1.2 In this regard the A.O. in his Remand Report asked for vide letter dated 24.08.2008 has submitted as under: In regards to protective addition of ₹ 8,73,000/- in the case of the assessee, your goodself has desired to know that whether substantive addition had been made in the case of his wife and to present status of this substantive addition. On perusal of the assessment order it is found that the AO had stated that reference was being made to IT0 26(1), New .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version