9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued notice under section 142(1) of the I.T. Act, requiring the assessee to furnish return of income. However, no compliance was made. Subsequently, the A.O. issued notice under section 148 of the Act. In response there to, assessee submitted that original return filed on 29th January, 2010 be treated as return filed in compliance to notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act. Thus, the A.O. issued detailed questionnaire seeking explanation of the assessee. The assessee contended that the construction of banquet hall started from April, 2006 and completed on 31st October, 2008 at land measuring 116.99 Sq. Mts. Which was purchased on 18th November, 2005 for a consideration of Rs. 15,48,000. Further, adjoining land measuring 89.405 sq. was purchased on 28.03.2006 for Rs. 2,55,000. The assessee in her written submissions admittedtax liability of Rs. 53,470 for A.Y. 2006-07. It was further submitted that investment in construction of banquet hall was at Rs. 28 lakhs and source of investment was explained as under : (i) Out of saving from agriculture income Rs. 3,00,000 (ii) Out of sale deed dated 18.11.2005 to Ramesho Devi Rs. 1,99,450 (iii) Withdrawal from saving bank acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hs under section 69 of the Act. 5. Regarding claim of investment out of gifts received of Rs. 13 lakhs, it was gathered by the A.O. that assessee had claimed to have received gifts from the following persons : (i) Shri Yashvir Singh Tyagi, Rs.3,00,000 (ii) Shri Mukesh Tyagi Rs.1,00,000 (iii) Smt. Shashi Rs.3,00,000 (iv) Shri Karam Singh Tyagi Rs.6,00,000 5.1. The A.O. recorded the statement on oath of the donors. From the statements recorded on oath, it was gathered by the A.O. that donors failed to specify the date-wise amount paid to the assessee. Further, the aforesaid donors have never gifted any amounts previously. The assessee had never disclosed to the department receipt of huge gifts. The return of income is filed after notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act. Therefore, genuineness of the gifts was not found genuine by the A.O. The A.O. asked the assessee to explain why the gifts of Rs. 13 lakhs may not be treated as unexplained and added to the income of assessee. 5.2. It was contended by the assessee that gifts were received from the aforesaid persons who were real brother and sons of real another brothers. Copies of their land holdings and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, assessee was asked to show cause as to why the income to that extent be not enhanced. The assessee submitted that she belongs to District Muzaffarnagar. Hence, for the purpose of ascertaining the value of construction, the rates of U.P. PWD may be applied. However, the Ld. CIT(A), rejected the contention of assessee and enhanced the income to Rs. 3,24,467. 6. The assessee in the appeal has raised several grounds. Ground No.1 is general and need no adjudication. On ground No.2, assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 2,45,000 out of addition of Rs. 3 lakhs made by the A.O. as unexplained investment from accumulated savings of agriculture income. Learned Counsel for the Assessee did not submit any evidence of earning of any agriculture income by the assessee in assessment year under appeal. No agriculture income was shown in the return of income filed on issue of notice under section 142(1) of the Act. The assessee did not have any evidence of accumulation of past agriculture income. Merely because assessee was holding agricultural land holdings of 20 bigas would not prove that assessee earned any agricultural income or has any past savings so that to make any investment in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove the creditworthiness of the donors and genuineness of the gifts in the matter. The additions were rightly made by the authorities below. I rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar 292 ITR 552, decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P. Mohan Kala 291 ITR 278, decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Yashpal Goel vs. CIT 310 ITR 75. Considering the above decisions, I am of the view that the assessee failed to establish the creditworthiness of the donors and genuineness of the gifts in the matter. Therefore, no interference is called for. This ground No.3 of appeal of assessee is dismissed. 8. On ground No.4 assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 3,24,467 being difference on account of investment in cost of construction of banquet hall as per DVO report. The assessee pleaded before the Ld. CIT(A) that for the purpose of ascertaining the value of construction, rates of UP PWD may be applied, which authorities below have failed to apply in the matter. Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raj Kumar182 ITR 436 in which the Tribunal w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 from Shri Karan Singh (brother), Rs. 1,66,000, Shri Yashveer Singh (nephew) Rs. 1,00,000, Smt. Shashi Tyagi (niece) Rs. 2,17,000 and Shri Mukesh Tyagi (nephew) Rs. 28,000. The assessee furnished the evidence in respect of gifts received from Shri Yashveer Singh (nephew) of Rs. 1 lakhs, to that extent, the addition was deleted. In the absence of any other evidence, gifts of Rs. 4,11,000 was confirmed. 12.1. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the issue is same as has been considered in A.Y. 2008-09. Following the reasons for decision for A.Y. 2008-09, I dismiss this ground No.3 of appeal of assessee. 13. On ground No.4, assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 80,100 out of addition of Rs. 2,34,000. Regarding addition of Rs. 2,34,000, assessee has contended that in the year under reference, she had cash accumulation of Rs. 2,03,900 out of dairy business, bank interest, family pension, agriculture income and past savings, out of which Rs. 50,000 was spent for house hold purpose. Therefore, balance amount of Rs. 1,53,900 remained in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) gave benefit to assessee at Rs. 1,53,900 and made the addition of Rs. 80,100. 13.1. The Learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
