9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions made by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(1) ('the AO') amounting to Rs. 1,99,725/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'} in respect of the gifts received from Haribhat Vekariya alleging that the creditworthiness of the lender was not established. 1.2 The CIT(A) erred in - * Disregarding the factual and legal submissions made by the appellant at the time of appeal; * Not making any further investigation with respect to the claim; and * Verifying the source of source of the lender. 1.3 The Appellant therefore prays that the AO be directed to delete the aforesaid additions amounting to Rs. 1,99,725/-. Ground No. 2: 2.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -. The assessee, during the course of appellate proceedings has argued that Smt. Hansaben Vagasiya is regularly assessed to tax since last several years and derives income from commission, interest and other sources. It has been stated that the donor has given loans to several persons in the past, where interest of Rs. 1,95,480/- has been received during the year and similarly incomes have been received in the past as also in subsequent years. The in this regard also produce bank statement of Smt. Hansaben Vagasiya,the donor. From the perusal of bank statement it is gathered that no cash deposits have been made therein. Since the donor is a close relative and is been assessed to tax and no cash deposits as such has been made in the bank acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ft and not through cheque therefore it can be safely assumed That the demand draft was made through deposition of cash. Though the donor owns some agricultural land but it does not clearly establish that he actually earned sufficient income from the source so that he could have generated enough surplus, after meeting his own expenses, to give gift to the present assessee. Further no proof of earning agricultural income, like sale of agricultural produce etc. has been furnished by the assessee. In these circumstances the gift given by him to the assessee could not be treated as explained. Therefore addition made by the AO in this regard is upheld." 6. Against the above order, assessee is in appeal before the ITAT for the sustenance of addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
