Dr. S.P.S. Thakur, Hamirpur V. ITO, Hamirpur

ITA 1210/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7083 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 7 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-08-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 13-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR DAYA INDER SINGH SIDHU CIT
• Keywords: Gift; Income from undisclosed sources; Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 56

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, A, CHANDIGARH . . , , BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1210/CHD/2011 ! ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 DR. S.P.S.THAKUR, SAI HOSPITAL V & PO DUGHA HAMIRPUR (H.P.) #$ THE ITO, HAMIRPUR % & ./PAN NO: ABOPT4971G %'/ APPELLANT )*%' /RESPONDENT HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING +, - . /ASSESSEE BY : SMT. KOMAL THAKUR, ADVOCATE - . / REVENUE BY : DR. DAYA INDER SINGH SIDHU, ADDL . CIT / 0 - ,1& /DATE OF HEARING : 09.07.2020 23'! - ,1& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.08.2020 / ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2011 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS), SHIMLA [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)] AGITA TING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 LAC MADE INTO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT, INTO THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASS ESSEE. ITA NO. 1210-CHD-2011 DR. S.P.S.THAKUR, HAMIRPUR 2 2. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 1 LAC WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH CHEQUE FROM HI S DAUGHTER AS GIFT. FURTHER, THE SOURCE OF THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ALSO EX PLAINED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY HIS DAUGHTER, DR. RICHA THAK UR FROM HER MOTHER-IN-LAW THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL OUT OF AMOUNT OF THE ACCIDENT CLAIM OF DR. RICHAS FIRST HUSBAND. THE ASSESSEE C OULD NOT PRODUCE HIS DAUGHTER DR. RICHA THAKUR FOR STATEMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS SHE WAS SETTLED AT USA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THER EFORE, CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SATISFACTORILY PROVE THAT TH E SAID AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED AS GIFT FROM HIS DAUGHTER. HE, ACCORDINGL Y TREATED THE SAID AMOUNT AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND AD DED THE SAME TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF APPELLANT-ASSESSEE OBSERVING THAT THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE NAMELY SMT. PRATIMA HAD ALSO RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 60,000/- AS GIFT FROM HER DAUGHTER DR. RICHA THAKUR. HE OBSERVED THA T UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES THE FATHER DO NOT ACCEPT GIFT FROM HI S DAUGHTER. HE ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS UNACCOUNT ED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ROUTED THROUGH THE ACCOUNT OF HIS DAUGHTER . BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASS ESSEE HAS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO. 1210-CHD-2011 DR. S.P.S.THAKUR, HAMIRPUR 3 5 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. AU THORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUG H THE RECORD. THE APPELLANT MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCES ON RECORD I.E. THE COPY OF THE PASSPORT TO PROVE THAT HIS DAUGHTER HAS BEEN SETTLED AT USA AND FURTHER THE COPY OF THE BANK ACC OUNT OF DR. RICHA HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RECE IVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL FROM DR. RICHA BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ABOVE STATED EVIDENCES, IN OUR VIEW, DO NOT PAR TAKE THE CHARACTER OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. THE FACT THAT TH E DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE DR. RICHA THAKUR HAS BEEN SETTLED AT USA A ND THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1 LAC RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUE BY THE ASSESSE E FROM HIS DAUGHTER ARE ALREADY ON THE RECORD AND HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROV ERTED OR DENIED BY THE REVENUE. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT DO NOT CONSTITUTE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THOUGH, A REQUEST HAS BEEN MADE TO REMAND THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE CASE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESA ID EVIDENCES, HOWEVER, AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RECORD AND THE AFORESAID EV IDENCES SOUGHT TO BE PRODUCED, WE DO NOT THINK THAT ANY USEFUL PURPOSE W ILL BE SERVED BY REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. NOW COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE. THE ADDITI ON HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) ONLY ON THE BASIS OF ASSUMP TION THAT A FATHER WILL NOT TAKE A GIFT FROM HIS DAUGHTER, HOWEVER, A S PER THE PROVISIONS OF ITA NO. 1210-CHD-2011 DR. S.P.S.THAKUR, HAMIRPUR 4 SECTION 56 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT ' THE ACT'), THE FATHER AND DAUGHTER COMES IN THE DEFINITION OF RELATIVES A ND THERE IS NO BAR FOR GIVING OR TAKING GIFT INTER SE BY THEM. THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FROM BANK ACCOUNT OF THE DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE. IT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN DISPUTED THAT THE DA UGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE NAMELY DR. RICHA HAS BEEN SETTLED AT USA, THEREFORE , THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE HER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE A SSESSEE HAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE DONOR ALSO THAT THE SAI D AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY HIS DAUGHTER FROM HER MOTHER-IN-LAW ON ACCOUNT O F ACCIDENT CLAIM OF HER FORMER HUSBAND. 7. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT F IND ANY JUSTIFICATION ON THE PART OF THE CIT(A) TO DISBELIE VE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS THAT THE DAUGHTER OF THE ASS ESSEE HAS ALSO GIFTED SOME MONEY TO HER MOTHER ALSO. MAY IT BE SO, THAT IS TO BE SEEN IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE INCOME OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSE E BUT THAT FACT HAS NO RELEVANCY SO FAR AS THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE CONCERNED. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DENIED BY THE CIT(A) MERELY ON THE BASIS OF ASSUMPTION, WHICH, IN OUR VIEW, IS NOT JUSTIFIED . IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY PROVED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT WHIC H ADMITTEDLY HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED IN TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE THOUGH BANKING CHANNEL FROM THE ACCOUNT OF HIS DAUGHTER. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE DO NOT ITA NO. 1210-CHD-2011 DR. S.P.S.THAKUR, HAMIRPUR 5 FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THE S AME IS ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE AND THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS STAND DELETED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 10.8.2020. SD/- SD/- ( . . / N.K. SAINI) ( ! / SANJAY GARG) '#$ / VICE PRESIDENT %& / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 10.08.2020 .. 4-),5676', / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. %' / THE APPELLANT 2. )*%' / THE RESPONDENT 3. / 8, / CIT 4. / 8, ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. 69),: , 1: ! , ;<=> / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. =?0 / GUARD FILE 4 / / BY ORDER, @ / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR