TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit entries in the Saving Bank account of the assessee. Some of the entries were successfully explained before the AO. However, with regard to sum of Rs. 1,85,000 credited on 16th Aug., 1993, it was stated on behalf of the assessee that the amount was deposited in the bank out of foreign gifts of US Dollars 6000 and US Dollars 2000 from Shri Mohinder Handa. On being called upon to explain the genuineness of the gift transactions, the assessee furnished a photocopy of cashier's check and also a fax copy of letter from Sh. Mohinder Handa. The AO noted that no affidavit from Sh. Mohinder Handa was filed. It was also noted that the source of the person making gift or his capacity had also remained unauthenticated. Based on these facts, the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned CIT(A) agreed with the contention raised on behalf of the assessee and deleted this addition, as well. 4. Before us, the learned Departmental Representative strongly relied on the assessment order by contending that the additions were wrongly deleted. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that in similar circumstances in the same assessment year, gifts were also received by Sh. Narinder Kumar Sekhri from Sh. Handa and the learned CIT(A) while disposing of the appeal of Sh. Narinder Kumar Sekhri had relied on his order in the case of Sh. Subhash Chander which, in turn, forms the basis of the impugned order. While taking us through the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Narinder Kumar Sekh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation affirming the gift to Sh. Manoj Kumar was placed at p. 3 of the paper book and similarly copy of cashier's check favouring the assessee of 2450 US Dollars was also shown to us, to have been placed at p. 4 of paper book. It was, therefore, contended that in absence of any material to reject the assessee's explanation, the AO was not justified in making addition and the learned CIT(A) while appreciating the facts had correctly deleted the additions. 6. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, it is obvious that insofar as the gift of Rs. 1,85,000 received from Sh Handa through proper banking channel is concerned, the AO had made the addition without rebutting assessee's explanation. He had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hal, the addition was deleted. Since no distinguishing feature has been brought to our notice vis-a-vis Sh. Narinder Kumar Sekhri's case, respectfully following precedent, we confirm the impugned order. Turning to the other addition of Rs. 61,788, it is found that the learned CIT(A) deleted this addition by holding that the credit related to the next assessment year for the reason that the amount credited to the assessee's the bank account was on 20th May, 1994, which falls in the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1995-96. The reason advanced by the CIT(A) in support of his action is that the amount was credited in the next year. From the facts, it transpires that the said cheque of 2450 US Dollars received by the assessee is dt. 24 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
