9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 of Income Tax Act 1961 (in short the 'Act'). 2. The assessee in ITA No.1631/PUN/2013 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. The learned CIT appeal has not implemented the directions of Hon.ITAT vide Para 7 on page 4 of ITAT order 31/05/2011 Hence the order passed is illegal and not tenable in law. 2. CIT appeal has not interrogated the appellant to decide genuineness of gift nor put any question to the appellant. Hence the order passed is Perverse and against the principle of natural justice. 3. The CIT appeal never issue any summons/ notice to the donor/donee to decide and find out the truth of the matter as directed by Hon. ITAT Hence the order passed dated 21/06/2013 is against the principle of natural justice. 4. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee, equivalent to Rs. 4,68,000/-. 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search u/s 132(1) of the Act was carried out in the case of Shri Girdharilal Radhakisan Madhyan, who is the father of the Assessee. The said search action was carried out between 11/04/1995 to 13/4/1995 at both residence as well as business premises of the assessee. Certain incriminating documents, diaries, books of accounts, etc., were found during the search. As a result of the evidence found, it was established in the case of the father of the assessee that he was engaged in money lending and matka business and had collected wealth which was never disclosed to the Department. Further evidence of gifts received from NRI were found and sum of Rs. 12,51,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... planation and noted that in the first round of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer had given opportunity to Shri Girdharilal R. Madhyan to produce person for cross verification from whom gifts were received, but Shri Girdharilal R. Madhyan failed to do so. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) thereafter had considered the evidence found and the contentions of the assessee on each of the issue vide para 3.7 onwards and had held that where neither the identity nor the credit worthiness of the donors was established, and the genuineness of the gifts in question have also not been established by the assessee, addition was to be made in the hands of assessee and the other assessee's before us. 7. The second aspect which was noted b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i G.R.Madhyan wherein additions have been confirmed in the hands of the assessee. 10. The ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue on the other hand opposed the submissions of the assessee. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue which arises before us is in relation to the addition made in the hands of assessee, his brother and mother on account of the alleged foreign gifts received by them. The assessee had received gift of Rs. 4,68,000/- and similarly Shri Harish G. Madhyan had received gift of Rs. 4,68,000/- and Mrs. Kavita G. Madhyan, gift of Rs. 3,15,000/-. The ld. Authorised Representative for the Assessee before us has not agitated the addition made on account of the unexplained investment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
