TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o that effect. While it is true a gift deed dt.25.9.2017 was filed in this regard before the AO, the same is only a self serving documents bereft of corroboration by any material evidence to establish both the credit worthiness and capacity of the father to give a cash gift of ₹ 10.50 lakhs and in the absence of any corroborative material evidence in this regard, I am of the considered view and hold that the impugned orders of the authorities below on this issue are upheld and the assessee's claims, being bereft of any merit, are to be rejected. - Decided in favour of revenue - I.T. A. No.2463/Bang/2018 - - - Dated:- 12-10-2018 - SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri B. G. Kupendra Setty, CA For Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... galore dt.28.6.2018 for Assessment Year 2015-16, has preferred this appeal wherein he has raised the following grounds :- 1. The order of the CIT (Appeals) is erroneous on the facts and in the law. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case he ought not to have dismissed the appeal. 2. The Assessing Officer and CIT (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in making addition of ₹ 10,50,000 of gift from aged father, and there is no provision under the law to tax the same. 3.2.1 The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee was heard in the matter and also put forth written submissions which are extracted hereunder :- 1. The appellant father Sri B.K. Ramakrishna, aged about 78 years, was doing real est ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing officer during scrutiny proceedings and it was not considered by him. Further submitted that now father of the appellant who had given the gift of ₹ 10,50,000/- expired and therefore no further additional evidences are filed. The Assessing Officer has given the finding that the appellant's father Shri B.K. Ramakrishna was not filing returns of income and the sources of the funds were found not genuine. 4. Both the AO and the learned CIT (A) have not looked into the fact that: (i) The donor is the father of the appellant (ii) The donor was aged about 78 years (DOB: 26-09-1938) (iii) Aged donor has given cash as he could not operate regular bank a/c, during the period when he was in deathbed. (iv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ness of the said transaction are not proved. According to the learned Departmental Representative, the Assessing Officer, on a perusal of the details filed by the assessee, noticed that the assessee had shown an amount of ₹ 10.50 lakhs as cash gift received from his father. On being queried in this regard, the assessee furnished a gift deed, the genuineness of which was not accepted by the Assessing Officer, as the assessee's father was never an income tax assessee nor could any proof be brought on record by the assessee to establish that his father had the credit worthiness / capacity to gift cash of an amount of ₹ 10.50 lakhs or the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted that on appeal before the learned CIT (App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in a different context. It is further submitted that the provisions of Sec. 56(2)(vii)(c) are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand and the SOP issued by CBDT though issued subsequent to the order of assessment, the requirements therein has been carried out by the authorities below. The learned Departmental Representative prays that in view of the above, the orders of the authorities below be upheld. 3.4.1 I have heard the rival contentions, perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements cited. The undisputed facts that emerge from the record in the case on hand are that in the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that he had shown an amount of ₹ 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such a huge cash gift from any known or established sources of income. This factual view draws support from the fact that the assessee's father was never an income tax assessee and did not apparently have or operate any regular bank account. I have, with respect perused the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of LIC Vs. CIT (supra) cited by the learned Authorised Representative, and concur with the view of the Revenue that this decision would not come to the rescue of the assessee in the case on hand as it was rendered in a different context. 3.4.3 In fresh arguments put forth before me, the learned Authorised Representative contends that the aforesaid gift from father to the assessee cannot be taxed in the hands of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
