Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (12) TMI 346 - ITAT LUCKNOW

2015 (12) TMI 346 - ITAT LUCKNOW - TMI - Unexplained cash credit - assessee failed to discharge the onus to prove the source of the source to establish the genuineness of the gift and creditworthiness of the donor - Held that:- The opening balance on 12/09/2003 in the bank account of the donor was ₹ 8.05 lacs, which was much more than the amount of cheque issued by donor in favour of the assessee as gift. Simply because there is a cash deposit of ₹ 50,000/- on 12/09/2003, creditworth .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ith the donnee because it is observed by learned CIT(A) in Para 4.1.1 of his order that it was submitted before him that the gift was given by uncle and grandmother of the assessee and this contention of the assessee is not controverted by learned CIT(A) or by Learned D.R. of the Revenue. Under these facts, we are of the considered opinion that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A) is not justified. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Addition on account of l .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t there is no infirmity in the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No.263/LKW/2015 - Dated:- 28-8-2015 - SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Pradeep Seth, F.C.A. For The Respondent : Shri R. K. Ram, D. R. ORDER PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. This is an assessee s appeal directed against the order passed by learned CIT(A)-I, Kanpur dated 16/01/2015 for the assessment year 2004- 2005. 2. The assesse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ned A.R. of the assessee reiterated the same contentions, which were raised before CIT(A) whereas Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the first issue in dispute regarding gift of ₹ 4 lacs was decided by learned CIT(A) as per Para 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 of his order, which are reproduced below for the sake of ready reference:- 4.1.1 The grounds no. 2, 3 & 4 of appeal are against the addition of  .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the same and that she has discharged her onus. 4.1.2 I have carefully perused the submissions of the assessee and the material on record. The appellant has accepted that she received gift of ₹ 4,00,000/- during the year. Although, she has furnished PAN and details of return of income and confirmation of the donors, however these details at best prove the identity of donors and not the genuineness of the gifts, in view of the hand written confirmation of the donors. It is seen from records .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

income shown at ₹ 66.172/- by the appellant are interest income and long term capital gains. The onus was on the appellant to prove the sources of the source in order to establish that the gift is genuine and that donors have creditworthiness. The appellant has failed to do so. Merely relying on the fact that cheque was made for gift does not discharge the onus of the appellant. In this regard reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Umesh Krishnani vs Income-tax Officer [2013] 35 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ition made by authorities below was to be upheld- Held, yes" The genuineness of gift to appellant is not proved and she has not discharged her onus of providing genuineness of gifts and capacity of the donor for ₹ 4,00,000/-. This amount is rightly assessed as income of the appellant. RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED IN THE CASE OF MUKESH SHAW VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER [2012] 246 CTR 32 (JHARKHAND) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT: WHETHER WHERE ONE CLAIMS THAT HE HAD RECEIVED CERTAIN AMOUNTS FROM 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

ditworthiness. During the appellate proceedings too, the appellant has not furnished concrete evidence to establish the genuineness of the gift and creditworthiness of donor. Thus, the addition on this account is upheld. Hence, no interference is called for in the assessment order, in this regard. Grounds of appeal are dismissed. 5. From the above paras from the order of learned CIT(A), we find that it is noted by CIT(A) that it was the submission of the assessee before him that the gift was 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

of bank statement of the donor is available in the paper book on pages 9 & 10. From the same, we find that the cheque of ₹ 4 lacs was cleared from the bank account of the donor on 12/09/2003 and no doubt, there is cash deposit of ₹ 50,000/- in that bank account on the same date but before that cash deposit, there are two deposits in the same bank account on 02/09/2003 of ₹ 7,52,550/- and on 17/05/2003 of ₹ 20,150/- and both these credits are by clearing. The opening .....

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