TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1091X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was one of the issues in the assessment. When the ld. CIT (A) has finally deleted the addition made by the AO, then this issue does not germane to the present proceedings. Addition on account of gift - assessee has claimed the gift of ₹ 8,00,000/- received from Smt. Poonaj Kanjani stated to be the Aunt of the assessee and non-resident Indian based at UAE - Held that:- We find that the AO has raised the pertinent objection regarding the claim of gift received from Smt. Poonam Kanjani and assessee has failed to satisfy the requirement as per the provisions of section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned orders of the authorities below. - Decided against assessee - ITA No. 426/JP/2018 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... crease in the capital account of the assessee and further the addition made by the AO of ₹ 3,20,000/- under sections 68 and 69 of the Act was deleted by the ld. CIT (A). Therefore, the said issue does not germane in the present appeal when the ld. CIT (A) has already granted relief to the assessee. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The assessee has taken an objection against the jurisdiction of the AO to make an addition apart from the issue of increase in the capital account of the assessee. We find that the AO selected the case for scrutiny on the issue of increase in the capital account of the assessee during the year un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hallenge the further addition made by the AO which is beyond the scope of limited scrutiny and, therefore, such addition made by the AO would not nullify the entire assessment proceedings when the jurisdiction assumed by the AO by issuing the notice under section 143(2) was one of the issues in the assessment. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case when the ld. CIT (A) has finally deleted the addition made by the AO, then this issue does not germane to the present proceedings. Ground No. 2 is regarding an addition of ₹ 8,00,000/- on account of gift. 5. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee explained that the said amount of ₹ 8,00,000/- was received from one Shri Raj Kumar of Hyderabad on accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scharged his obligation to prove the genuineness of the gift through banking channel and the creditworthiness of the creditor. He has further submitted that the AO without conducting further verification has rejected the explanation of the assessee and even the evidence filed by the assessee solely on the ground that the notice issued to Shri Raj Kumar of Hyderabad was received back undelivered with the postal remark that the recipient was not available at the address. The ld. A/R has further contended that the assessee has proved the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction, therefore, no addition could be made under section 68 of the Act. Under the provisions of section 68 of the Act, once the existence of the person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In support of the claim, the assessee has furnished the Bank Certificate of Bank of Baroda regarding the remittance of the amount from the bank account of Shri Raj Kumar of Hyderabad. However, the assessee has claimed this gift from Smt. Poonam Kanjani and not from Shri Raj Kumar of Hyderabad. The assessee further explained that since Shri Raj Kumar owed the money to Smt. Poonam Kanjani and, therefore, as per her instruction he transferred the said money to the assessee. We find that apart from the mere contentions and submissions, assessee has not furnished a single evidence or document to show how this amount has come from Smt. Poonam Kanjani. In the absence of any documentary evidence of movement of the amount of Smt. Poonam Kanjani, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see on account of the NRI gift of ₹ 800000/- is made to the income of the assessee for the following reason :- 1) It has not been shown how Poonam Kanjani is close relative of assessee and covered within the definition of Family as per the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2) The genuineness of the transaction is not proved as first the assessee claims that the gift has been received from NRI Aunt Smt. Poonam Kanjani and when the transfer entry is found to be from Shri Raj Kumar then A story is made that a sum was lying to the credit of Smt. Poonam Kanjani with Shri Rajkumar and hence the same had been transferred to Shri Vicky Jethani. 3) The nexus of sum being transferred from account of Shri Raj Kumar with Smt. Poonam Kanjani ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
