B.Sharmila Reddy , Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1310/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8187 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-12-2019
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KIRAN KATTA
• Assessee Lawyers: B SHANTI KUMAR
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 143(3); 143(1); 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD SMC BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO , HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 13 10 / HYD /201 8 (ASST. YEAR : 2009 - 10 ) SMT. B. SHARMILA REDDY, FLAT NO. 2A, SRI SAI KRISHNA APARTMENTS, HINDI NAGAR, PUNJAGUTTA, HYDERABAD. V S . IT O , WARD - 6(4 ), HYDERABAD . PAN NO. AEPPB 6836 C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI B. SHANTI KUMAR A R . DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI KIRAN KATTA SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 02 / 12 /201 9 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 / 0 1 /20 20 . O R D E R TH IS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 6 , HYDERABAD , DATED 23 /0 2 /201 8 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 . 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME BY ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,27,520/ - . THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED U/SEC. 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'ACT') AND AFTER FOLLOWING DUE PROCEDURE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/SEC. 143(3) DATED 28/12/2011 . DURING THE C O URSE OF 2 ITA NO. 1310 / HYD /2018 ( SMT. B. SHARMILA REDDY ) ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS TO THE TU NE OF RS. 21,49,010/ - IN HER SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH ICICI BENCH, S.R.NAGAR BRANCH . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES FOR THE CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS INCLUDING CASH DEPOSITS ALONG W ITH NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE . THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF CREDITS IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT ON 22/ 1 2/2011. AS SEEN FROM THE SAME, THE SOURCES FOR THE CASH DEPOSITS ARE MAINLY OUT OF HER CASH WITHDRAWALS AND MORE SPECIFICALLY AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM PARENTS AND HER HUSBAND . THE DETAILS OF THE CASH RECEIPTS ARE AS FOLLOWS: - SRI B. VENKAT RAM REDDY HUSBAND RS. 6,85,000 SRI V. VENKATA NARAYANA REDDY FATHER RS. 7,00,000 SMT. V. GIRIJAMMA MOTHER RS. 3,00,000 THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FA I LED TO FILE CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM HER HUSBAND . CONSIDER I NG THE SAME AND ALSO TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THAT HE IS ASSESSED TO INCOME - TAX, THE SOURCES FOR CASH DEPOSITS RECEIVED FROM HER HUSBAND IS ACCEPTED. HOWEVER, CASH RECEIVED FROM HER PARENTS , NO CONFIRMATION LETTERS HAVE BEEN FILED, SHE HAS FILED ONLY P ATTADAR PASSBOOK , BUT NO DETAILS OF CROPS GROWN, NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND OTHER RELEVANT EVIDENCE ARE FURNISHED . EXCEPT FILING OF LAND 3 ITA NO. 1310 / HYD /2018 ( SMT. B. SHARMILA REDDY ) DOCUMENT S , THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY PROOF OR EVIDENCE THAT HER PARENTS ARE HAVING SUCH SUBSTANTIAL INCOME AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITW O R T HINESS OF THE TRANSACTION S . ACCORDINGLY, THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM HER PARENTS TO THE TUNE OF R S. 10.00 LAKHS HAS BEEN TREATED AS UNEX PL AINED INVESTMENT AND ADDED BACK IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 . ON APPEAL, LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ACCEPTED THAT THE LAND HOLDINGS OF THE ASSESSEES FATHER AND MOTHER AND BY ADOPT ING THEORY OF HUMAN PROBABILITY CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT GENUINE TRANSACTIONS AND THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4 . LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEES FATHER IS HAVING 16 ACRES OF MANGO GARDEN AND 55 ACRES OF WET LAND AND ASSESSEES MOTHER IS ALSO HAVING 16 ACRES OF MANGO GARDEN AND 5 ACRES OF WET LAND . ALL THE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF THESE AMOUNTS I.E. PATTADAAR PASSBOOK AND ADANGAL HAVE BEEN FIELD BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 5. LD.DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6 . I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEES FATHER HAS 16 ACRES OF MANGO GARDEN AND 55 ACRES OF WET LAND AND IN WET LAND HE IS CARRYING 4 ITA NO. 1310 / HYD /2018 ( SMT. B. SHARMILA REDDY ) AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES OF PADDY, SUGARCANE AND OTHER COMMERCIAL CROPS AND ASSESSEES MOTHER IS ALSO HAVING 16 ACRES OF MANGO GARDEN AND 5 ACRES OF WET LAND . THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PROCEEDED WITH A THEORY OF HUMAN PROBABILITY AND OBSERVED THAT GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARENTS ARE NOT PROVED, THEREFORE ADDITION IS CONFIRMED . WHEN THE ASSESSEES PARENTS ARE HAVING HUGE EXTENT OF LANDS NEAR ABOUT 32 ACRES OF MANGO GAR DEN AND 60 ACRES OF WET LAND , ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BY APPLYING HUMAN PROBABILITY THEORY, IN MY OPINION, IS NOT CORRECT. I FIND THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS ON HYPER TECHNICAL MANNER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE HUGE EXTENT OF MANGO GARDEN AND ALSO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES CARRIED BY THE PARENTS. WHEN THE ASSESSEE S PARENTS ARE CARRYING AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND GIFTED MONEY TO THEIR DAUGHTER , IT HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE CONTEXT OF RE LATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARENTS AND THE DAUGHTER AND NOT IN A COMMERCIAL ANGLE BY APPLYING HUMAN PROBABILITY THEORY. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE LD. CIT(A) HAVING ANY DOUBT, THEY HAVE TO ESTABLISH THAT MONEY HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM ASSESSEE TO HER PA RENTS, THERE IS NO FINDING AT ALL TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE S MONEY HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE PARENTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME MONEY HAS GIFTED TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, BY CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND 5 ITA NO. 1310 / HYD /2018 ( SMT. B. SHARMILA REDDY ) CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND BY CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT DETAILS I.E. PATTAADAR PASSBOOK , ADANGAL AND DOCUMENTS TO THE EXTENT OF LAND HOLDINGS OF THE ASSESSEE S PARENTS , I HOLD THAT GIFTING OF RS.10.00 LAKHS TO THE ASSESSEE IS WITHIN THE FINANCIAL CAPACITY OF THE ASSESSEES PARENT S, THEREFORE THEORY APPLIED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN HYPER TECHNICAL MANNER CANNOT SURVIVE . I FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO GIVE REASONS WHY HE HAS NOT ABLE TO CONSIDER THE SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE PARENTS FROM THE HUGE EXTENT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AS WELL AS COMMERCIAL LAND AND WHY HE HAS APPLIED HUMAN PROBABILITY THEORY NOT EXPLAINED. THEREFORE, I FIND THAT THE GIFT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HER PARENTS IS GENUINE AND CREDITWORTHINESS IS PROVED AND T HEREFORE ADDITION CANNOT SURVIVE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS DELETED. THUS, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON TH IS 2 2 N D DAY OF JAN. , 20 20 . S D / - ( V. DURGA RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 2 2 N D JANUARY , 20 20 . VR/ - COPY TO: 6 ITA NO. 1310 / HYD /2018 ( SMT. B. SHARMILA REDDY ) 1. THE ASSESSEE SMT. B. SHARMILA REDDY, FLAT NO. 2A, SRI SAI KRISHNA APARTMENTS, HINDI NAGAR, PUNJAGUTTA, HYDERABAD. 2. THE REVENUE ITO, WARD - 6(4), HYDERABAD. 3. THE PR. CIT - 6, HYDERABAD. 4. THE CIT(A) - 6, HYDERABAD. 5. THE D.R . , HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM.