Chandra Prakash Chaudhary V. Commissioner Of Income Tax Dehradun

ITA/17/2014

AI Insights

The case involves Chandra Prakash Chaudhary, the appellant, who appealed against the decisions of the lower authorities regarding the addition of Rs. 8,60,000 to his income for the Assessment Year 2003-2004. This amount was treated as unexplained cash credit from various gifts. The appellant claimed these were gifts from relatives, providing details only for one donor, Smt. Usha Tomar, his sister, which was accepted. However, for the other donors, no satisfactory details were provided despite multiple opportunities. The Assessing Officer, therefore, added the amount to the appellant's income as unexplained. The appellate authority and the Tribunal upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 672424 (HC-UTTARAKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. P. Mohanakala (2007) 6 SCC 21
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: HARI MOHAN BHATIA
• Assessee Lawyers: YOGESH PACHOLIA
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2003-2004; Concealment penalty; Delay condonation; Gifts; Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 271(1)(c); 132

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Income Tax Appeal No. 17 of 2014 With Delay Condonation Application No. 3551 of 2014 Chandra Prakash Chaudhary. .………. Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax. ...………. Respondent Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate for the respondent. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble K.M. Joseph, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Dated: 16th December, 2014 K.M. JOSEPH, C.J. (Oral) Heard. The Delay Condonation Application is not seriously opposed. In the circumstances, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The Delay Condonation Application is, accordingly, allowed. 2. The matter relates to Assessment Year 2003-2004. Proceedings were taken against the appellant apparently on the basis of search conducted under Section 132 in respect of certain others. On the basis of the search, the Assessing Officer noted that there is an unexplained cash credit. The assessee made a claim of gifts from the following persons: Usha Tomar - 2,50,000/- M.S. Sarot - 2,50,000/- Asha Sarot - 2,15,000/- Chaklelshwar Singh - 2,10,000/- Sunil Kr. - 1,85,000/- 3. According to the appellant, the gifts were received from the relatives. Appellant gave details in respect of one Smt. Usha Tomar, who is sister of the appellant, and, in respect of the other gifts, it appears that, 2 despite opportunity, details were not provided. It is also found by the Assessing Officer that a letter was sent to the assessee through registered post at his two addresses and also on the address of one Sri Manoj Pahwa, the C.A., and he was given opportunity to explain the genuineness of the alleged gifts. A show-cause notice was issued as to why ` 7,10,000/- may not be added to his income as unexplained amount in his account. There is no reply to the same also. The Assessing Officer, therefore, accepted the version in regard to the gift from his sister and, as regards the others, that was added to his returned income. Concealment penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) was also initiated. It is this order, which has been confirmed by the first appellate authority and also by the Tribunal. 4. The following substantial question of law is being raised: “1. Whether the learned CIT(A) as well as learned ITAT is right in upholding the addition of Rs. 8,60,000/- made by the Assessing Officer treating the gifts received by the assessee from various persons as unexplained credit of the assessee?” 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Revenue. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Assessing Officer has not followed up the matter by taking up the issue with the persons from whom the gifts were actually received. He would also take exception to the penalty proceedings. He would further submit that interest may not be imposed on the appellant. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Revenue would point out that the details were provided by the appellant in regard to only one of the persons, namely, Smt. Usha Tomar and that version was accepted also. As regards the others, no details were given and, therefore, nothing could be done. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no basis for interference. He also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of 3 Commissioner of Income Tax vs. P. Mohanakala reported in (2007) 6 SCC 21. 8. We have already referred to the question of law, which is raised. In this regard, we notice that the Assessing Officer has accepted the appellant’s version on the basis of details given in regard to his sister Smt. Usha Tomar. In regard to the others, it would appear that the details were not given by the appellant in order to enable the Assessing Officer to proceed with the matter and ascertain the genuineness. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the genuineness. Essentially, it is a question of fact. As regards the penalty and interest, we see that no question of law is, in fact, raised at all. Hence, we see no reason to interfere in the matter. 9. The appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (V.K. Bist, J.) (K.M. Joseph, C. J.) 16.12.2014 16.12.2014 G "