TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber) This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 25.03.2013 of ld. CIT(A), Meerut. 2. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: 1. That the Learned Lower Authorities erred in completing and confirming the assessment u/s 148/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the action taken u/s 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal, arbitrary and uncalled for. 3. That in this case the regular assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 23.02.2004 after duly considering the Gift in question and the Assessing Officer has accepted the Gift. Hence, the action taken u/s 148 on this point is illegal and uncalled for. 4. That the Learned Lower Authorities erred in adding and confirming the addition of a sum of ₹ 5 lacs in the income of the assessee treating the Gift of ₹ 5 lacs received from Sanjay Mohan Agarwal as bogus Gift. 5. That the addition as made and confirmed is arbitrary, uncalled for and illegal. 6. That the assessment completed u/s 148/143(3) on 15.09.2006 is barred by limitation and kindly be annulled. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 29.10.2001 declaring an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w Delhi. It was submitted that in the said case also gift was received from Shri Sanjay Agarwal and the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act (copy of the said order was furnished which is placed on record). 6. In her rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and reiterated the observations made by the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. 7. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. It is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts was involved in the case of Shri Vinod Bahl Vs ITO (supra) wherein a similar gift of ₹ 3 lacs was received by the said assessee and the case was reopened u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of report of Deputy Director(Inv.). In the said case the addition made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) was deleted and the relevant findings have been given in paras 12 to 16 which read as under: 12. I have given careful thought to the submission of the parties. In large number of cases through investigations and inquiry, the department has found that many companies and individuals indulge in hawala transactions. On the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh but only hawala to cover up a bogus transaction. The provisions of Section 147 were correctly held to be applied. It was held by their Lordships of Supreme Court that information received was specific in nature and reliable in character which goes to expose the falsity of claim or statement made by the assessee at the time of original assessment. Their Lordships of Supreme Court, after taking into account decision of Chhagamal Rajpal and Lakhnami Mewal (supra) held that two situations were distinct and different. Whereas on the basis of general information, reopening of assessment is not valid. However, it was valid where reopening was based on specific information passed to the assessing officer. 13. The aforesaid decisions given in relation to reopening of assessment under sections 147/148 of I.T. Act are good guidance for deciding case in hand on merit. Legal effect of quality of information cannot work to the advantage of the revenue where information is the basis of assessment rather than reopening of assessment proceedings. In fact, stronger evidence is needed to justify addition on merit against evidence for action u/s 147/148. The reopening of proceeding u/s 147/148 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer at the first instance, it could not be raised at appellate stage by Id. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and, that too, without insisting on production of the original. In the above circumstances, I hold that Shri Sanjay Mohan Agarwal confirmed the transaction in question as a loan transaction which was received back by him as pleaded by the assessee. 15. It is therefore to be seen that as against above evidence which clearly establish and prove genuineness of credit of ₹ 3 lacs, what has revenue done to hold the credit as bogus and hawala? They collected information that Shri Sanjay Mohan was giving large scale hawala, entries. The information is general in character and fall in the first category mentioned above. Other evidence that several donees/loanees surrendered several gifts/loans from Shri Sanjay Mohan is no evidence to materially affect the case of the assessee. Therefore, the case of assessee cannot be taken as disproved. 16. There is another controversy between the parties whether the amount given was a gift or a loan. The assessee claimed it to be interest free loan which was returned to Shri Sanjay Mohan Agarwal. The revenue, on the other han ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
