The ACIT, Central Circle, Vijayawada, Vijayawada V. Sri Bhavansi Anjaneyulu, Piduguralla

ITA 130/VIZ/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 89185 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 24-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OMKARESWARA RAO; SATISH KUMAR I
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Double taxation relief
• Section: 147; 68

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.126 127 AND 130 OF 2012 BHAVANSI ANJANEYULU VIZAG PAGE 1 OF 12 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, & SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.126 & 127/VIZAG/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2001-02 & 2002-03 SHRI BHAVANSI ANJANEYULU, VISAKHAPATNAM DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) GUNTUR (APPELLANT) PAN NO: ACJPB 0329 C VS. (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.130/VIZAG/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) GUNTUR SHRI BHAVANSI ANJANEYULU, VISAKHAPATNAM (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) PAN NO: ACJPB 0329 C ASSESSEE BY: SHRI G.V.N. HARI, CA DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI OMKARESWARA RAO AND SHRI SATISH KUMAR, I DR DATE OF HEARING: 2/3/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 4/3/2015 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY. THESE THREE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE DEPARTMENT ARE AGAINST A COMMON ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) GUN TUR DATED 24.02.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 AND 2002- 03. WHILE THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 I S BY THE ITA NOS.126 127 AND 130 OF 2012 BHAVANSI ANJANEYULU VIZAG PAGE 2 OF 12 ASSESSEE, THERE ARE CROSS APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2002-03. AS COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THEY ARE TAKEN UP FOR DISPOSAL IN THIS CONSOLIDATED OR DER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN ASSESSEES APPEALS IS WITH REG ARD TO ADDITIONS MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT ON THE GIFTS RECEIVED FROM HIS SON, WHO IS AN NRI, WHEREAS THE DE PARTMENT IS CHALLENGING THE PARTIAL RELIEF GRANTED BY THE LEAR NED CIT (A) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID AD DITION. 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, ASSESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL IS D ERIVING INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND OTHER SOURCES. ASSESS EE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 O N 13.10.2001 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,25,290 BES IDES AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.77,000. SIMILARLY, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.01.2003 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,07,550 BES IDES AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.77,000. SUBSEQUENTLY, IN C OURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 004-05 ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR INFORMATION REGARDING TH E GIFTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEES SON SHRI B. SATYA KUMAR WHO I S A NON ITA NOS.126 127 AND 130 OF 2012 BHAVANSI ANJANEYULU VIZAG PAGE 3 OF 12 RESIDENT INDIAN. AS PER THE INFORMATION/DOCUMENTS RECEI VED UNDER EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION UNDER US-INDO DTAA, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT GIFTS RECEIVED FROM ASSESSEES SON DURIN G THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AMOUNTED TO RS.9,80,025 (US $ 26134), WHEREAS THE ASSE SSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-0 2 HAS SHOWN GIFTS OF RS.3.00 LAKHS ONLY. THEREFORE, ACCORD ING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE INCOME OF RS.6,80,025 HAS ESCA PED THE ASSESSMENT. RECORDING A REASON TO THAT EFFECT, ASSESSIN G OFFICER REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AN D ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 148. IN C OURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED HIS BANK ACCOUNT COPY MAINTAINED WITH ANDHRA BANK, PIDUGURALLA WHEREIN AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,68,000 WAS CREDITED ON 19.03.2001. ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER EXAMINING THE E VIDENCE ON RECORD OBSERVED THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR THE DONOR FURNISHED ANY CONFIRMATION AS REGARDS WHO RECEIVED TH E BALANCE AMOUNT OR IN WHICH BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSE E, THE REST OF THE MONEY WAS DEPOSITED. ASSESSING OFFICER OBS ERVED THAT THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF RS.8,34,164 WHICH WAS SUPP OSED TO HAVE BEEN REMITTED BY HIS SON WAS NOT BROUGHT INTO THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AND MUST HAVE BEEN SIPHONED OF F TO ITA NOS.126 127 AND 130 OF 2012 BHAVANSI ANJANEYULU VIZAG PAGE 4 OF 12 OTHER ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN A CCOUNTED. HE OBSERVED, ASSESSEE MUST HAVE INVESTED SUCH AMOUNT WITHOUT SHOWING IT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED, IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ASSESSEE STATED THAT SURPLUS FUND TO THE TUNE OF RS.37.00 LAKHS TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE FARMERS AS LOANS. HOWEVER, IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2004-05, ASSESSEES CLAIM WAS NOT ACCEPTED. ACCORDIN GLY, FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 A SSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY BRINGING THE AMOUN T OF RS.8,34,164 TO TAX AT THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE TREATING IT AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT.. SIMILA RLY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BAS IS OF INFORMATION FURNISHED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 FOUND THAT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION OBTAINED UNDER INDO-US DTAA, THE GIFTS RECE IVED DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AMOUNTED TO RS.46,04,775 WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF IN COME HAS SHOWN GIFT OF RS.9.00 LAKHS ONLY. ACCORDINGLY FOLLOW ING THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITI ON OF RS.37,12,800 UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT BY OBSERVING THAT THE ITA NOS.126 127 AND 130 OF 2012 BHAVANSI ANJANEYULU VIZAG PAGE 5 OF 12 CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR IS NOT ESTABLISHED. BEIN G AGGRIEVED OF THE ADDITIONS MADE AS AFORESAID, ASSESSE E PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A). 4. THE LEARNED CIT (A) WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,34,164 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 GRANTED PARTIA L RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 BY REDUCIN G THE ADDITION TO RS.16,47,200 BY OBSERVING THAT THE SOURCE OF GIFT TO THE EXTENT OF BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.20,65,600 STOOD EXP LAINED. 5. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED BEFOR E US, WHEN THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE GIFT FROM HIS NRI SON THROUGH REGULAR BAN KING CHANNEL, MERELY BECAUSE THE ENTIRE GIFT WAS NOT SHOWN B Y THE ASSESSEE OR THE FACT THAT DEPARTMENT COULD NOT FIND ANY INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THAT AMOUNT, WILL N OT NECESSARILY LEAD TO A CONCLUSION THAT IT IS ASSESSEES MONEY WHICH IS ROUTED BACK TO HIM THROUGH HIS SON. IT WAS S UBMITTED, WHEN THE SOURCE OF GIFT IS EXPLAINED AND THERE IS NO INFORMATION WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE ANY INVESTMENT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS, THE ADDITION MADE ON PRESUMPTION AND SURMISES WILL NOT BE SUSTAINABLE. FUR THER THE ITA NOS.126 127 AND 130 OF 2012 BHAVANSI ANJANEYULU VIZAG PAGE 6 OF 12 LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED, THE ADDITION S WERE MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. HOWEVER, WHEN THE ISSUE OF S IMILAR ADDITION MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 CAME IN APPE AL BEFORE THE ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, THE ITAT AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND MATERIALS ON RECORD DELETED THE ADDITION BY ACCEPTING THE GIFTS AS GENUINE. THE LEARNE D AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED WHEN THE DEPARTMENT HAS NO INFORMATION THAT IT IS ASSESSEES MONEY WHICH HA S BEEN PLOUGHED BACK TO HIM THROUGH HIS SON, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE DONOR HAS NO CREDITWORTHINESS. IN THIS CONTEXT HE R ELIED UPON A DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF KULDEEP SINGH IN ITA NO.50/HYD/2012 DATED 12.07.2013. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUB MITTED, THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HYDERABAD BENCH HAS ALS O BEEN UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN JUD GMENT DATED 20.11.2014 IN ITTA NO.694 OF 2014. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER SUBMITTED BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE IN AN ORGANIZED MANN ER IS INTRODUCING CAPITAL IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY WAY OF ALLEGED GIFTS FROM THE NRI SON. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL ITA NOS.126 127 AND 130 OF 2012 BHAVANSI ANJANEYULU VIZAG PAGE 7 OF 12 REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED, FROM THE INFORMATION PROVIDED B Y THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS GREAT DOUBT WITH REGARD TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AS ASSESSEE WAS NOT SHO WING THE ENTIRE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM HIS SON, BUT ONLY SHOW ING A PART OF IT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED. FURTHER, AS TH E CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR HAS NOT BEEN PROVED THE CLAIM OF GIFT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASS ESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE AMOUNT NOT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS GIFTS RECEIVED FROM HIS SON AS UNEXP LAINED CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 7. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED, THE CIT (A) WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING A PART OF THE ADDITION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 002-03. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES A ND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFU LLY APPLIED OUR MIND WITH REGARD TO THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES. AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE REASONS RECORDED F OR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL, THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FULLY DISCLOSED THE GIFTS RECEIVED FROM HIS NRI SON AS REVE ALED FROM ITA NOS.126 127 AND 130 OF 2012 BHAVANSI ANJANEYULU VIZAG PAGE 8 OF 12 THE INFORMATION OBTAINED UNDER INDO USA DTAA. THEREFOR E, FROM THE REASONS RECORDED AS WELL AS FACTS ON RECORD, THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES SON SHRI B. SAT YA KUMAR WHO IS AN NRI HAS TRANSFERRED THE AMOUNT, IN QUE STION, TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT YEARS. IT I S ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE GIFTS RECEIVED ARE THROUGH REGULAR BA NKING CHANNEL. THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS IS APPARENT FROM THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS, ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF DECLARING THE ENTIRE GIFTS IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME HAS ONLY DISCLOSED A PART OF IT. HOWEVER, AS C AN BE SEEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE GIFTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SAME DONOR AS GENUINE. HE IS ONLY DISPUTING THE GIFT RECEIVED FROM THE SAME SOURCE WHICH ALLEGEDLY WAS NOT SHOWN BY ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN OUR VIE W, SUCH DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT CANNOT BE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIFT RECEIVED FROM A COMMON SOURCE, EVEN ASSUMING THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED A PART OF IT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. WHEN THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE SOURCE OF SUCH GIFT AND THE MODE AND MANNER, THEN ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT MAKE TH E ADDITION BY SIMPLY OBSERVING THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR. MORE SO, WHEN AS P ER THE INFORMATION OBTAINED UNDER THE INDO USA DTAA IT IS PROV ED ITA NOS.126 127 AND 130 OF 2012 BHAVANSI ANJANEYULU VIZAG PAGE 9 OF 12 THAT THE GIFTS HAVE COME FROM ASSESSEES SON SHRI B.SAT YA KUMAR THROUGH REGULAR BANKING CHANNEL AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO ACCEPTED GIFT TO EXTENT DISCLOSED BY ASSESSE E IN HIS RETURNS. WITHOUT BRINGING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ESTA BLISH THAT THE DONOR DOES NOT HAVE CREDITWORTHINESS OR THE FAC T THAT IT IS ASSESSEES UNACCOUNTED MONEY WHICH WAS ROUTED BA CK TO HIM THROUGH HIS SON, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT MAK E ADDITIONS PURELY ON CONJECTURE AND SURMISES. FURTHER, IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE BASIS FOR ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 IS DUE TO THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER WHIL E MAKING SIMILAR ADDITION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. H OWEVER, AS CAN BE SEEN, WHEN ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 68 I N ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEF ORE ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH IN CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.154/VIZAG/2010, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISS IONS OF THE PARTIES VIS--VIS THE FACTS AND MATERIALS ON RECO RD THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER: 11. GROUND NOS.2&3 RELATE TO AN ADDITION OF RS.32,4 9,177/- AND IN THIS REGARD THE FACTS BORNE OUT FROM THE ORD ER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RE CEIVED A SUM OF RS.32,49,177/- AS GIFT FROM HIS SON WHO IS W ORKING IN USA AS A PRESIDENT OF FIRST TEK TEHNOLOGIES INC. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ON VERIFICATION HAS NOTICED THAT APART FROM THIS 72000 US $ GIFTED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THIS YEAR, THE DONOR HAD ALSO GIFTED AN AMOUNT OF 24000 US $, 18000 US $ & 50000 US $ IN ITA NOS.126 127 AND 130 OF 2012 BHAVANSI ANJANEYULU VIZAG PAGE 10 OF 12 EARLIER 3 ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS DOUBTED THE RECEIPT OF GIFT AND MADE AN ADDITION OF THE SAM E UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AFTER TREATING IT TO BE UNEXP LAINED. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEES SON HAD GONE TO USA FOR FURTHER STUDIES IN 1996 WHI CH HE COMPLETED IN 1998. THERE AFTER, HE TOOK UP HIS EMPL OYMENT IN 1999. THE ASSESSEES SON HAS ALSO TAKEN A LOAN OF 2 LAKH US $ AND OUT OF THE SAID LOAN AND ITS ANNUAL INCOME, THE AFORESAID AMOUNTS WERE GIFTED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE H AS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF GIFT MADE IN EARLIER YEARS ALSO. HE HAS FILED THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS AND AFFIDAVITS OF HI S SON AND ALSO A COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT TO SUBSTANTIATE AND TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT BUT THE CIT (A) WAS NOT CON VINCED WITH THE EVIDENCE PLACED BEFORE HIM AND HE CONFIRME D THE ADDITIONS. 12. NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE CONFI RMATION LETTERS OF THE DONORS AND THE COPIES OF THE INCOME TAX RETURNS AND THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE DONOR I.E. SON OF THE ASSESSEES. THE AFFIDAVITS OF THE ASSESSEES SON MR. SATYA KUMA R, ALSO FILED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT AFTER THE HIGHER STUDIES, SON OF THE ASSESSEE GOT AN EMPLOYMENT IN USA AND WHATEVER INCOME HE HAS EARNED , HE HAS BEEN SENDING TO HIS FATHER AS A GIFT. HE HAS AL SO TAKEN A LOAN OF 2 LAKH US $ AND HAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AS A GIFT. THE COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS IN SUPPORT OF THE AVAILAB ILITY OF THE FUNDS AT DIFFERENT POINTS OF TIME IS PLACED AT PG.N O.154 TO 170. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE IN SU PPORT OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, CREDITWORTHINESS A ND IDENTITY OF THE DONOR, THE AFORESAID TRANSACTIONS OF GIFT SH OULD NOT BE DOUBTED. 13. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND HAS SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSEES HAS BEEN RECEIVING THE GIFT IN EARLIER YE ARS ALSO AND THE SOURCE OF GIFT WAS NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINED TO TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE REVENUE HAS RIGHTLY TREATED THIS AMOUNT TO BE AS AN UNEXPLAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE ES. 14. HAVING GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS IN THE LIGHT OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE PLACE D ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES, WE FIND THAT B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SUFFICIENT TIME WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PLACE THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE. BUT THE ASSESSEE HA S PLACED ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE I.E. THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS OF THE ITA NOS.126 127 AND 130 OF 2012 BHAVANSI ANJANEYULU VIZAG PAGE 11 OF 12 DONOR, BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE DONOR, AFFIDAVITS OF TH E DONOR, ETC. BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) CALLED A REMA ND REPORT THEREON. IN THESE AFFIDAVITS AND CONFIRMATION LETTE RS, THE ASSESSEES SON HAS CONFIRMED THE GIFT OF AFORESAID AMOUNT. WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCE OF GIFT, HIS SON HAS EXPL AINED THROUGH HIS AFFIDAVITS THAT HE HAS TAKEN A LOAN OF 2 LAKH US $ AND THE GIFT WAS GIVEN OUT OF THE SAVINGS AND THE L OANS. WE HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE AND WE FIND THAT THERE ARE REGULAR TRANSAC TIONS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND MOST OF THE TIME HE WAS HAVING SUF FICIENT BALANCE. THE BANK ACCOUNTS SHOWS THE CREDITWORTHINE SS OF THE DONOR. THE DONOR HAS ALSO FILED AN INCOME TAX RETUR N IN THE USA. THIS IS A GIFT WHERE AS ASSESSEES SON HAS GIF TED A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT TO HIS FATHER AND THIS TYPE OF C ASE SHOULD NOT BE DOUBTED. BECAUSE IN OUR SOCIETY WHENEVER CHI LDREN GOES ABROAD FOR EMPLOYMENT, THEY USED TO SEND THEIR SAVINGS TO THEIR PARENTS THROUGH GIFT. SINCE THE TRANSACTIO NS ARE OVERSEAS TRANSACTIONS, IT SHOULD NOT BE DOUBTED UNL ESS AND UNTIL SOME CONTRARY IS BROUGHT ON RECORD. IN THE IN STANT CASE THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ITS ALL EFFOR TS TO GET THE TRANSACTIONS VERIFIED, BUT HE COULD NOT BRING ANYTH ING ON RECORD TO DOUBT THE SAME. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT RECEIV ED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS SON SHOULD NOT BE DOUBTED. WE ACC ORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DELETE THE AD DITION MADE IN THIS REGARD. 9. THEREFORE, THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE BEING IDEN TICAL, THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH WOULD SQUARELY A PPLY. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE ARE INCLINED TO DE LETE THE ADDITIONS MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 10. AS WE HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERITS, WE DO NOT FIND NECESSARY TO DEAL WITH THE ASSESSEES LEGAL GROUNDS RAISED ON ITA NOS.126 127 AND 130 OF 2012 BHAVANSI ANJANEYULU VIZAG PAGE 12 OF 12 THE VALIDITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A RE ALLOWED AND THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH MARCH, 2015. SD/- SD/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 4 TH MARCH,2015 PVV/SPS CAMP: VISAKHAPATNAM, COPY TO 1 SHRI BHAVANSI ANJANEYULU,C/O SHRI G.V.N. HARI, FC A, D.NO.30-14-11 DABBIRU MANSION, DABAGARDENS, VISAKHAPATNAM 20 2 DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) GUNTUR 3 THE CIT (A) GUNTUR 4 THE CIT GUNTUR 5 DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM