Ram Ashish, Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

ITA 111/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9952 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTALDR
• Keywords: Gift

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 111/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI RAM ASHISH, VS THE ITO, PROP. M/S VERMA VASTARIYA, WARD III(3), RAM NAGAR, LUDHIANA. MUNDIAN KALAN, LUDHIANA PAN: ACZPA3047J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIVEK RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL,DR DATE OF HEARING : 20.05.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.06.2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-I, LUDHIANA DATED 22.01.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED RS. 16 LACS IN HIS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED TH AT HE HAD DEPOSITED OUT OF HIS CASH IN HAND, SAVINGS OF H ER WIFE SMT. SUSHILA DEVI AND SAVING OF RAM ASHISH, HUF AND 2 MOREOVER, SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED FOR THE EVIDENCE WITH REGAR D TO SAVINGS WITH HIS WIFE AND HUF ALONGWITH SALE PROCEE DS OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHEN HUF WAS CREATED. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAIN ED THAT HUF WAS CREATED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND ITS RETURN WAS ALSO FILED FOR THE SAME YEAR. THE A SSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHAT INCOME HAS BEEN DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF HUF BUT HE DID NOT SAY ANYTHING. FUR THER DETAILS OF SHARE TRANSACTIONS WERE ALSO NOT EXPLAIN ED. NO RECORD OF EARNING OF INCOME BY HIS WIFE WAS PRODUCE D. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, MADE ADDITION OF RS. 6,50,000/-. 3. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) T HAT HIS WIFE SMT. SUSHILA DEVI IS RUNNING KIRYANA SHOP AND IS ASSESSED TO TAX. GIFTS WERE RECEIVED OF RS. 3,50,0 00/- FROM HIS WIFE SMT. SUSHILA DEVI AND RS. 3 LACS HAS BEEN GIFTED BY RAM ASHISH, HUF. THE GIFT DEEDS HAVE BEE N PRODUCED. OTHER FACTS WERE ALSO EXPLAINED REGARDIN G DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH ARE NOT RELEVANT BECAUSE NOW THE ADDITION UNDER CONSIDERATION IS OF RS. 6,50,000/- IN RESPECT OF GIFT RECEIVED FROM SMT. SU SHILA DEVI AND HUF, AS NOTED ABOVE. 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DID NOT ACCEPT CONTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE AND FOUND THAT HUF IS CREATED IN ASSESSMEN T YEAR UNDER APPEAL ITSELF AND ASSESSEE COULD NOT GIV E DETAILS OF EARNING OF HUF THEREFORE, SOURCE OF GIFT IS NOT 3 EXPLAINED. FURTHER, NO DETAILS OF SOURCE OF INCOME OF SMT. SUSHILA DEVI WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN FILED THEREFORE, MERELY GIFT DEEDS HAVE BEEN FILED, WOULD NOT SERVE ANY PURPOSE BECAUSE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDIT WORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIO N IN THE MATTER. ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69A OF RS. 6,50 ,000/- WAS CONFIRMED AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMIS SED. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND I AM NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIE S BELOW. THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF THE DONORS DECLARATION IN THE CASE OF SMT. SUSHILA DEVI AND RAM ASHISH, HUF. SMT . SUSHILA DEVI STATED TO HAVE GIFTED RS. 3,50,000/- T O ASSESSEE AND HUF HAS GIVEN GIFT OF RS. 3 LACS, EXCE PT THE DONORS DECLARATION, NO OTHER EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN FI LED ON RECORD TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT IN THE MATT ER. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE SOURCE OF THE GIFTS RECEIV ED FROM BOTH THESE PERSONS ALONGWITH GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IN THE MATTER. MERE CONFIRMATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED FROM THE DONORS WHICH ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO D ISCHARGE BURDEN UPON ASSESSEE TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE GI FT IN THE MATTER. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT MERE FILIN G OF CONFIRMATION IS NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE GENUINE CREDITS . I RELY UPON DECISION OF HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT I N THE CASES OF BHARTI PVT. LTD. 111 ITR 951 AND UNITED COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL COMPANY PVT. LTD. 187 ITR 5 96. 6. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS CLEAR T HAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE D ONORS 4 AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IN THE MATTER. THEREFORE, AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE JUSTIFIED IN MAKI NG AND CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 6,50,000/-. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, THUS, HAS NO MERIT, SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 1 ST JUNE, 2016. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD