Venkatchalam R. Chettiar, Vadodara V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(4), Now Ward-3(1)(5), Baroda

ITA 1718/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6282 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 23-01-2020
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 24-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K GOYAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL R SHAH
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Gift; Reason to believe
• Section: 143(3); 64; 147; 68; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH BEFORE: SHR I AMARJIT SINGH , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY , JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI ANAND VENKATACHALAM CHETTIAR LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI VENKATACHA LA M R. CHETTIAR, C/O, MEENAKSHI TRANSPORT CO., 118 & 119, VIP VIEW, VIP ROAD, KARELIBAUG, VADODARA PAN: ABGPC9581M (APPELLANT) VS THE IT O , WARD - 5 (4) , VADODARA (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI N.K. GOYAL , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: SHRI ANIL R. SHAH & KINJAL SHAH , A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 23 - 01 - 2 020 DATE OF PRONO UNCEMENT : 29 - 01 - 2 020 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - ALL THESE FOUR APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED GIFTS. SINCE THE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEAL S , THEREFORE , FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE ALL THE S E APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ADJUDICATED BY TAKING FACTS OF ITA 1718/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 2001 AS LEAD I T A NO S . 1718 TO 1721 / A HD/20 16 A .Y. 2000 - 01 TO 2003 - 2004 I.T.A NO S . 1718 TO 1721 /AHD/20 16 A.Y. 2000 - 01 TO 2003 - 04 PAGE NO SHRI ANAND VENTATACHALAM CHETTIAR LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI VENKATACHALAM R. CHETTIAR VS. IT O 2 CASE AND ITS FINDINGS WILL BE APPLICABLE TO THE OTHER THREE APPEALS INVOLVING IDENTICAL ISSUES BASED ON SIMILAR FACTS . ITA NO. 1718/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 2001 2. THE FACT IN BRIEF IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 26 TH MARCH, 2001 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF R S. 1 , 38 , 812/ - . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED U/S. 1 4 7 OF THE ACT BY ISSUING OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT ON 19 TH MARCH, 2007. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT , THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE VARIOUS DETAILS IN RESPONSE TO THE VARIOUS NOTICES ISSU ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN AL L THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE A SSESSEE HAS RECEIVED VARIOUS GIFTS FROM VARIOUS PERSONS AS MENTIONED BELOW: - A.Y. 2000 - 01 SHRI P. KUMAR RS. 52, 310/ - 29.06.1999 SHRI SARLESH S. PATEL RS. 1,00, 000/ - 03.07.1999 SHRI D.M. DESAI RS. 25,000/ - 12.11.1999 SHRI D.M. DESAI RS. 25, 000/ - 28.02.2000 A.Y. 2001 - 02 SHRI D.M. DESAI RS. 50, 000/ - 06.02.2001 SHRI H.T. ARORA RS. 36, 000/ - 25.05.2000 SHRI H.T. ARORA RS. 14,000/ - 03.06.2000 SHRI H.T. ARORA RS. 30, 000/ - 13.06.2000 A.Y. 2002 - 303 SHRI H.T. ARORA RS. 24,000/ - 23.06.2001 SHRI BHAVESH A. PATEL RS. 1,70,000 01.02.2002 A.Y. 2003 - 04 SHRI REKHABEN A. PATEL RS. 1,00,000 27.03.2002 THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES AND GENUINENESS OF THE G IFTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED CONFIRMATION REGARDING RECEIVING OF THE GIFTS , COPIES OF BANK STATEMENT OF THE DONERS ETC. I.T.A NO S . 1718 TO 1721 /AHD/20 16 A.Y. 2000 - 01 TO 2003 - 04 PAGE NO SHRI ANAND VENTATACHALAM CHETTIAR LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI VENKATACHALAM R. CHETTIAR VS. IT O 3 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF GIF T TRANSACTIONS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE RECEIPT BY WAY OF GIFT RECEIVED OF RS. 2 , 03 , 313/ - PERTAINING TO THE F.Y. RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED /UNDISCLOSED SOURCE U/S. 68 OF THE AC T. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) . THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - 4. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS ON RECORDS, SUBMISS ION OF LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND REMAND REPORT OF ASSESSING OFFICER. GROUND NO. 1 PERTAINS TO THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 AFTER MAKING ADDITION OF RS.2,03,310/ - AND RS.6,95,422/ - . THESE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED SEPARAT ELY BY GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 AND HENCE GROUND NO. 1 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE IS NOT ADJUDICATION SEPARATELY. 4.1 GROUND NO. 2 PERTAINS TO THE ADDITION OF RS.2,03,310/ - MADE U/S . 68 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED GIFT S. THE APPELLANT HAS SH OWN GIFTS FROM VARIOUS PERS ONS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE DETAILS OF GIFTS ARE AS UNDER: - A.Y. 2000 - 01 SHRI P. KUMAR RS.52,310/ - 29.06.1999 SHRI SARLESH S. PATEL RS. 1,00,000 / - 03.07.1999 SHRI D.M. DESAI RS. 25,000/ - 1 2.11.1999 SHRI D.M. DESAI RS. 25, 000 / - 28.02.2000 A.Y. 2001 - 02 SHRI D.M. DESAI RS. 50,000 / - 06.02.2001 SHRI H.T. ARORA RS. 36, 000/ - 25.05.2000 SHRI H.T. ARORA RS. 14,000/ - 03.06.2000 SHRI H.T. ARORA RS. 30,000/ - 13.06.2000 A.Y. 20 02 - 03 SHRI H.T. ARORA RS. 24, 000 / - 23.06.2001 SHRI BHAVESH A. PATEL RS. 1,70,000 / - 01.02.2002 A.Y. 2003 - 04 I.T.A NO S . 1718 TO 1721 /AHD/20 16 A.Y. 2000 - 01 TO 2003 - 04 PAGE NO SHRI ANAND VENTATACHALAM CHETTIAR LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI VENKATACHALAM R. CHETTIAR VS. IT O 4 SMT. REKHABEN A. PATEL RS. 1,00,000/ - 27.03.2002 ALTHOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS PROVED IDENTITY OF THE DONORS AND SOURCE OF THE GIFTS P ARTIALLY SINCE THE AMOUNT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE BUT THE GENUINENESS OF GIFTS REMAINS TOTALLY UNPROVED. IT IS AN ESTABLISHED LEGAL POSITION THAT GENUINENESS OF THE GIFTS HAS TO BE ALSO PROVED BY ESTABLISHING THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DO NOR, NATURAL LO VE AND AFFECTION PROMPTING SUCH GIFTS AND THE OCCASION OF GIFTS . UNDISPUTEDLY THE APPELLANT HAS NO RELATION WITH THE DONORS AND THERE IS NO CIRCUMSTANCES RESULTING INTO NATURAL LOVE AND AFFECTION. THE GIFTS HAVE BEEN CLAIMED WITHOUT ANY OCCA SION FROM VARIOUS PERSONS CONSECUTIVELY IN F OUR YEARS. IT IS BEYOND ANY HUM AN P ROBABILITY THAT THE APPELLANT WAS GETTING GIFTS FROM THE STRANGERS FREQUENTLY, BUT HE HAS NEVER GIFTED ANYTHING TO ANYBODY. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIF TS IS NOT PROVED AND HENCE IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE AMOUNTS OF GIFTS SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT ARE REQUIRED TO BE ADDED U/S. 68. THIS VIEW FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: - A) LAXMANDAS SUJANDAS DALPAT VS. ITO (2015) 64 TAXM ANN.COM 180 (GUJ.) IN THIS CASE, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT FOR GENUINE GIFTS, EXISTENCE OF LOVE AND AFFECTION AND RELATIONSHIP ARE MUST. B) ABHAY DEVILAL RATHOD VS. DCIT (2010) 40 SOT 354 (AHD.) IN THIS CASE, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTH INESS OF THE DONOR AND GENUINENESS OF THE GIFTS, ALL INGREDIENTS HAVE TO BE PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE. MERELY PROVING IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR,, GIFTS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE GENUINE UNLESS NATURAL LOVE AND AFFECTION PROMPTING GIFTS IS ESTABLIS HED EVEN IF AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY CHEQUE. C) HANUMANDAS VS. CIT (2014) 221 TAXMAN 137 (P&H) IN THIS CASE, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT EVEN IF DONOR HAVE MEANS TO MAKE GIFTS, BUT THERE BEING NEITHER ANY RELATIONSHIP NOR ANY CIRCUMSTANCES TO SHOW NATURAL LOVE AN D AFFECTION OF THE DONOR TO THE DONEE NOR ANY OCCASION TO MAKE GIFTS TO THE ASSESSEE, ADDITION U/S. 68 SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND LEGAL POSITION THUS I HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED GIFTS U/S. 68 AS GENUINENESS OF THE GIFTS REMAINED IMPROVED. THUS GROUND NO. 2 IS DISMISSED. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL HAS CONTENDED THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WAS NOT VALID AS T HE SAME WAS REOPENED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DDIT(INVESTIGATION ) . THE LD. COUNSEL HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT GIFT S WERE RECEIVED BY AC COUNT PAYEE CHEQUES SUPPORTED BY CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM T H E DONER THEREFORE TH E LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS ALSO MADE ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION THAT IF THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT ALLOWED THEN THE ADDITION S HOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THE N E T PROFIT AND NOT TO THE WHOLE AMOUNT BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF GIFT RECEIPT. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT AFTER RECEIVING INFORMATION FROM THE DDIT(INVESTIGATION) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S APPLIED I.T.A NO S . 1718 TO 1721 /AHD/20 16 A.Y. 2000 - 01 TO 2003 - 04 PAGE NO SHRI ANAND VENTATACHALAM CHETTIAR LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI VENKATACHALAM R. CHETTIAR VS. IT O 5 HIS MIND AND REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF HIS SATISFACTION AND REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE RECEIPT SHOWN FROM THE GIFT WAS NOT GENUI NE . T HE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSE E HAS RECEIVED GIFTS FROM DIFFERE NT PERSONS WHO WERE NOT RELATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUCH GIFTS W E RE NOT SUPPORTED WITH ANY GIFT DEED S . THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS ALSO STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF GIFT RECEIVED D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AND APPELLA TE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(A) . 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT WAS FINALIZED ON 28 TH DECEMBER, 2017. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICE D THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED GIFT S FROM DIFFERENT PERSONS IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS AS ELABORATED IN THIS ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADDED THE AMOUNT OF GIFT U/S . 68 OF THE ACT AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME O N THE GROUND THAT GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT WAS NO T PROVED. REGARDING ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 148 WAS NOT VALID, IT IS NOTICED THAT NOTICE U /S. 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 19 TH MARCH, 2007 AND B EFORE ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 148 , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED REA SON S ON 03 - 03 - 2007 AND ITS COPY WAS ALSO PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE DDIT( INVESTIGATION ) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PR OVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT RECEIV ED GIFTS FROM DIFFERENT PERSONS IN DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS CREDITED TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT NOT SUPPORTED WITH RELEVANT EVIDENCES . ON PERUSAL OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE INVESTIGATION WIN G TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FORMED A PRIMA FACIE BASIS TO I.T.A NO S . 1718 TO 1721 /AHD/20 16 A.Y. 2000 - 01 TO 2003 - 04 PAGE NO SHRI ANAND VENTATACHALAM CHETTIAR LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI VENKATACHALAM R. CHETTIAR VS. IT O 6 ENABLE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FORM A BELIEF OF INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAVING ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO SUBSTANCE IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STATING THE AS SESSING OFFICER DID NOT HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AND ARE OF NO HELP TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE. WE UPHOLD THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. T HEREFORE, THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . 6. REGARDING CONFIRMING UNEXPLAINED GIFT U/S. 68 OF THE ACT , IT IS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN GIFTS FROM VARIOUS PERSONS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AS REPORTED AB OVE IN THIS ORDER. ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THAT ALL THE DONERS HAD ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION WITH THE ASSESSEE. THERE WAS NOT ANY BLOOD REL ATION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE DIFFERENT DONERS AN D THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THESE DIFFERENT UNKNOWN PERSONS WOULD PROVIDE GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE IN DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED ON RECORD ANY GIFT DEED TO F URTHER ESTABL ISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT AND MERE PAYMENT BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE CANNOT BE TREATED AS GENUINE TRANSACTION WITHOUT ESTABLISHING THE OTHER INGREDIENTS I.E. OCCASION OF THE GIFT , RELATION OF THE DON ER WITH THE DONE E GIFT DEED ETC. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE FACTS THAT ALL THE GIFTS IN DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS HAVE BEEN CLAIMED WITHOUT ANY OCCASION AND THERE WAS NO OTHER RELATION BETWEEN THE DONERS AND THE ASSESSE E. THE DONERS APPEARED TO BE ME RE ACQUAINTANCES. THEREFORE , IT IS NOT POS SIBLE THAT THEY WILL VOLUNTARILY GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE FREQUENTLY IN DIFFERENT ASSESS MENT YEARS. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I.T.A NO S . 1718 TO 1721 /AHD/20 16 A.Y. 2000 - 01 TO 2003 - 04 PAGE NO SHRI ANAND VENTATACHALAM CHETTIAR LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI VENKATACHALAM R. CHETTIAR VS. IT O 7 WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) HOLDING THAT GENUINENESS OF GIFTS REMAINED UNPROVED. WE COULD NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANCE IN THE ALTERNATIVE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION UP TO THE NET PROFIT. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE FIN DING OF LD. CIT(A). BOTH THE GROU NDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMI SSED. ACCORDINGLY, BOTH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E ARE DISMISSED. 7 . IN ADDI TION TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS ON THE BASIS OF GIFTS AS ADJUDICATED ABOVE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED GROUND NO. VIDE ITA NO. 1719/AHD /2016 AGAINST THE DECISION OF LD. CIT (A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 30 , 275/ - BEING REFUND RECEIVED IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03. IT IS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT IMPUGNED REFUND AMOUNT HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOWN AS INCOME IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT, THEREFORE, WE DIRECT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF REFUND AMOUNT AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SAME HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOWN AS INCOME IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT. IN RESPECT O F PROFESSIONAL TAX PENALTY OF RS. 95 ,4 50/ - DISA LLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALREADY CONSIDERED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AT PARA 4.4, PAGE NO. 20 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO T HE EXTENT OF PENALTY AMOUNT OF RS . 50, 000/ - AFTER EXCLUDING THE AMOUNT PERTAINING TO THE PAYMENT OF PROFESSIONAL TAXES. LOOKING TO THE ABOVE FACTS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INCORRECTNESS IN THE DECISIO N OF LD. CIT(A) , THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE D ECISION OF LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED . I.T.A NO S . 1718 TO 1721 /AHD/20 16 A.Y. 2000 - 01 TO 2003 - 04 PAGE NO SHRI ANAND VENTATACHALAM CHETTIAR LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI VENKATACHALAM R. CHETTIAR VS. IT O 8 8 . SINCE THE ISSUES PERTAINING TO GIFTS IN APPEALS ITA 1719 TO 1721/AHD/2016 ARE BASED ON SIMILAR FACTS AS IN APPEAL ITA 1718/AHD /2016 , SO, AFTER APPLY I NG THE FINDING OF APPEAL ITA 1718/AHD/2016 IN APPEAL ITA S 1719 TO 1721/AHD/2016 , ALL THESE THREE APPEALS ON THE ISSUE OF REOPENING AND ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED GIFTS ARE DISMISSED . 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS VIDE ITA 1718 /AHD/2016, 1720/AHD/2016 AND 1721/ AHD/ 2016 FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE DISMISSED AND APPEAL VIDE ITA 1719/AHD/2016 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 29 - 01 - 20 20 SD/ - SD/ - ( MADHUMITA ROY ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 29 /01/2020 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,