Sh. Sandeep Batra, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1004/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86732 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 09-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 29-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B R R KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: P N CHAWLA
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 1004/ DEL/ 2012 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1004 /DEL/201 2 A.Y. : 200 0 - 0 1 SH. SANDEEP BATRA, A - 35/4, MAYA PURI INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE - I, NEW DELHI 110 064 (PAN: AAHPB3284A) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 27(4), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : S HRI PN CHAWLA, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SH. BRR KUMAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 11 - 02 - 201 5 DATE OF ORDER : 1 6 - 02 - 201 5 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : J M ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS A PPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01 . 12 .201 1 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) - XIX, NEW DELHI RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 0 - 01 . 2. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED : - 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL XIX, NEW DELHI IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW & FACTS ON RECORD. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. INCOME TAX OFFIC ER WAS JUSTIFIED IN REOPENING THE CASE U1S 148 BEYOND FOUR ITA NO. 1004/ DEL/ 2012 2 YEARS WHICH IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY & IS AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. INCOME TAX OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN REOPENING THE CASE U / S 148 WHE N THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY DISCLOSED ALL THE PARTICULARS REQUIRED FOR ASSESSMENT AND AFTER FOUR YEAR THE INCOME TAX OFFICER REOPENED THE CASE WHICH IS ILLEGAL. 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT APPEAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN REJEC TING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD RECEIVED A GIFT OF RS.5 LAKHS FOR WHICH ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS REQUIRED FOR PROVING THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION WERE FILED? 5. WHETHER ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT APPEAL WAS JUSTI FIED IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.5,OOO / - ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED COMMISSION AS ESTIMATED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WITHOUT RHYME OR REASON AND AS SUCH THE ORDER PASSED IS ILLEGAL? 6. THAT THE CASE LAW REFERRED BY THE LD. CIT APPEAL IN DISPOSING OF THE A PPEAL IS AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ALL THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS WHICH SUPPORT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DONOR HAD A CAPITAL OF RS.28,61,52,340 / - OUT OF WHICH HE HAD GIVEN A GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS ITA NO. 1004/ DEL/ 2012 3 REJECTED B Y THE ITO & CIT APPEAL WHICH IS HIGHLY ARBITRARY & ILLEGAL. 7. THAT CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OFRS.5.05 LAKHS BY THE CIT APPEAL IS HIGHLY ARBITRARY, UNJUST, ILLEGAL & IS AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.5.05 LAKHS BE DELE TED FROM THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A GIFT OF RS. 5,00,000/ - BY CHEQUE NO. 915912 DRAWN AT VIJAYA BANK, ANSARI ROAD, DARYA GANJ, NEW DELHI FROM SH. SANJAY MOHAN AGGARWAL AND THE AO COMPLETED HIS ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT BY MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,0 0,000/ - TREATING THE SAME AS ENTITY FROM THE ENTRY OPERATOR. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION ASSESSEE FILED ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE INCLUDING THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SH. SANJAY MOHAN AGGARWAL ALONGWITH AFFIDAVIT, GIFT DEED AND CONFIRMATION OF THE DONOR I.E . SH. SANJAY MOHAN AGGARWAL, BUT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO AS WELL AS BY THE LD. CIT(A). HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF SH. SANJAY MOHAN AGGARWAL HAS BEEN COMPLETED BY MAKING THE HUGE ADDITIONS. HE FURTHER STATED THA T UNDER THE SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES, SUNIL CHHABRA HAS ALSO TAKEN A GIFT OF RS. 2 LACS FROM SH. SANJAY MOHAN AGGARWAL AND THE ITAT G BENCH PASSED IN ITA NO. 1547/DEL/2010 (A.Y. 2000 - 01) VIDE ORDER DATED 16.1.2015 IN THE CASE OF SUNIL CHHABRA VS . ITO HAS SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE AO, TO ASCERTAIN THE TAXABILITY AT THE RECEIPT IN THE HANDS OF THE DONOR, SH. SANJAY MOHAN AGGARWAL, WITH A DIRECTION ASSESSEE SHALL LEAD EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO THAT THE SAID GIFT HAS BEEN TAXED IN THE HANDS OF TH E DONOR; AND IF THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO PLACE ON RECORD NECESSARY EVIDENCE TO THE AFORESAID EFFECT, ITA NO. 1004/ DEL/ 2012 4 THE AO SHALL DELETE THE ADDITION AFTER MAKING POSSIBLE NECESSARY ENQUIRIES. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME DIRECTION MAY BE ISSUED IN THE ASSESSEE S CASE ALSO. HE FILED THE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.1.2015 OF THE ITAT G BENCH PASSED IN ITA NO. 1547/DEL/2010 (A.Y. 2000 - 01) IN THE CASE OF SUNIL CHHABRA VS. ITO. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS, ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ALONGWITH THE ITAT ORDER DATED 16.1.2015 OF THE ITAT G BENCH PASSED IN ITA NO. 1547/DEL/2010 (A.Y . 2000 - 01) IN THE CASE OF SUNIL CHHABRA VS. ITO. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPH NOS. 4 AND 5 OF THE AFORESAID ORDER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - 4. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION, WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT, THAT THE MATTER BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO, TO ASCERTAIN THE TAXABILITY OF THE RECEIPT IN THE HANDS OF THE DONOR, SH. SANJAY AGARWAL. WE THEREFORE, RESTO RE THE ADDITION BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO, WITH A DIRECTION THAT ASSESSEE SHALL LEAD EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO THAT THE SAID GIFT HAS BEEN TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE DONOR; AND IF THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO PLACE ON RECORD NECESSARY EVIDENCE TO THE AFORESAID EFF ECT, THE AO SHALL DELETE THE ADDITION AFTER MAKING POSSIBLE NECESSARY ITA NO. 1004/ DEL/ 2012 5 ENQUIRIES. HOWEVER, IF THE ASSESSEE FAILS IN THIS REGARD THEN ADDITION SHALL REMAIN. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWIN G THE AFORESAID PRECEDENT, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT CASE, TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE SAME DIRECTION I.E. THAT ASSESSEE SHALL LEAD EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO THAT THE SAID GIFT HAS BEEN TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE DONOR; AND IF THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO PLACE ON RECORD NECESSARY EVIDENCE TO THE AFORESAID EFFECT, THE AO SHALL DELETE THE ADDITION AFTER MAKING POSSIBLE NECESSARY ENQUIRIES. HOWEVER, IF THE ASSESSEE FAILS IN THIS REGARD THEN ADDITION SHALL REMAIN. 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE AP PEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE O PEN C OURT ON 1 6 / 2 /20 1 5 . S D / - S D / - [ J.S. REDDY ] [ H.S. SIDHU ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 1 6 / 2 /201 5 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES ITA NO. 1004/ DEL/ 2012 6