ITO-WARD-2(2), Nagpur V. SMT. URVI SANDEEP SURI, Nagpur

ITA 181/NAG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1627 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA KANE
• Assessee Lawyers: HARSH BONEJA
• Keywords: Gift; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 181/NAG/2014 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I.T.A. NO.181/NAG/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10. THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER, SMT. URVI SANDEEP SURI, WARD - 2(2), NAGPUR. VS. NAGPUR. PAN ATHPS 4044A APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI NARENDRA KANE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HARSH BONEJA. DATE OF HEA RING : 14 - 08 - 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 TH OCT., 2015 O R D E R PER MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) - I, NAGPUR DATED 19 - 12 - 2013. THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE ARE DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: 2. GROUND NO. 1: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,00,000/ - BEING THE AMOUNT ADJUSTED BY THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND TOWARDS OLD LOAN, RELYING ON THE DEED OF ASSIGN MENT, WHEN NO EVIDE NCE WAS ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE EXISTENCE OF ANY SUCH LOAN ITSELF. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) DATED 28 - 12 - 2011 WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY HA S RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 40 LAKHS AS A CONSENTING PARTY IN RESPECT OF A LAND TRANSACTION. THERE WAS A PROPERTY SOLD DURING THE YEAR WHICH BELONGED TO A THIRD 2 ITA NO. 181/NAG/2014 PARTY AND THE ASSESSEE WAS A CONSENTING PARTY IN THE SAID DEAL. FACTS OF THE CASE HAVE REVEALED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.40 LAKHS AGAINST THE PAYMENT MADE OF RS. 25 LAKHS, THEREFORE, DISCLOSED A SUM OF RS. 15 LAKHS AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. FURTHER, A S PER ONE OF THE CLAUSE OF AN ASSIGNMENT DEED DATED 16 - 10 - 2008 THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE A PAYMENT OF RS. 5 LAKHS OF SHRI SANDEEP SURI, HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF THE PAYMENT MADE THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED A CONFIRMATION LETTER OF SHRI SANDEEP SURI. SINCE THE ACCOUNTS OF SANDEEP SURI COULD NOT B E PRODUCED, THEREFORE, THE AO HAD CONCLUDED THAT LOOKING TO THE BUSINESS OF MR. SURI , THE ACCOUNTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED BY HIM. IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER EXPLANATION, A SUM OF RS. 5 LAKHS WAS TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. WHEN THE MATTER WA S CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DEED OF ASSIGNMENT DATED 16 TH OC., 2008. PLACING RELIANCE ON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE SAID DEED, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER ASSIGNING T HE FOLLOWING REASONS : THE APPELLANT, DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, HAS ALSO FILED A COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT WITH JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD., FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.2005 TO 31.3.2006 AND SUBSEQUENT PERIOD, WHICH SHOWS THE TRANSACTIONS OF LOANS BY THE APPELLANT WITH HER HUSBAND. ON CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE MATERIAL FACTS, IT IS SEEN FROM THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SHRI SANDEEP SURI IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.2007 TO 31.3.2008 THAT THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED LOAN OF RS. 73,85,869/ - . THE NET BALANCE AS ON 31.3.2008, AS PER THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE APPELLANT WITH SHRI SANDEEP SURI THROUGH JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD. ACCOUNT NO. 3935, IS SHOWN AT RS. 67,35,869/ - . THIS ACCOUNT WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE LD. AO, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AS IS OBVIOUS FROM THE FACT THAT THE LD. AO HIMSELF HAS ANALYZED THE ENTRIES OF CASH TRANSACTIONS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD. OF THE APPELLANT IN PARA - 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THUS, THE AMOUNT OF THE LOAN TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT FROM HER HUSBAND, IS VERIFIABLE WITH REFERENCE TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. 3 ITA NO. 181/NAG/2014 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO OF RS. 5 LAKHS CLAIMED TOWARDS THE COST OF PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY RIGHTS BY THE APPELLANT, I S NOT JUSTIFIED AND DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 4. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT LEARNED D.R. SHRI NARENDRA KANE APPEARED AND RAISED A LEGAL OBJECTION THAT THERE WAS NO CHA R GE ON THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF PROPERTY, HENCE NO DEDU CTION IS PERMISSIBLE AS PER LAW. 5. FROM THE SIDE OF THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE LEARNED A.R. MR. HARSH BONEJA APPEARED AND DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON A CONFIRMATION LETTER ISSUED BY SHRI SANDEEP SURI AND PLEADED THAT THERE WERE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES THAT THE AMOU NT OF RS.5,00,000/ - WAS IN FACT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT CORRECTLY APPLIED THE POSITION OF LAW ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. FACTS NARRATED BEFORE US, AS ALSO DISCUSSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, HAVE SIMPLY STATED THAT THE SAID SUM OF RS.5,00,000/ - WAS PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE TO HER HUSBAND, HENCE IT WAS PAID THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. BUT ACCORDING TO US THAT MUCH FACT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CLAIM A DEDUCTI ON AGAINST AN INCOME. THE AO HAS IN CLEAR TERMS HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.5,00,000, CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS A PART OF PURCHASE WAS NEVER ESTABLISHED. AS PER THE AO THE ONUS OF PROVING THAT RS.5,00,000/ - WAS THE PART OF THE COST OF PURCHASE OF RIGHTS I N THE LAND WAS ON THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS . WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), HE HAS SIMPLY VERIFIED THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT TO MR. SURI. BUT HE HAS FAILED TO LOOK INTO LEGAL SIDES OF THE ISSUE. THE GENERAL PRACTICE IS THAT A CLAIM IS ALLOWABLE IF THE SAME IS INCURRED EXCLUSIVE LY TO EARN INCOME. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAD FAILED TO EXAMINE THAT WHETHER IN THE PAST A CHARGE WAS CREATED BY THE HUSBAND WHEN THE PROPER TY IN QUESTION WAS ACQUIRED. LEARNED 4 ITA NO. 181/NAG/2014 CIT(APPEALS) HAS ALSO NOT EXAMINED THAT WAS THERE ANY OVER RIDING TITLE OF THE HUSBAND OVER THE RIGHTS OF THE ASSESSEE. APART FROM THESE TWO MAJOR LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF ANY CLAIM, LEARNED CIT(APPE ALS) WAS EXPECTED TO EXAMINE THAT WHETHER IT WAS A CASE OF APPLICATION OF INCOME . I T I S SETTLED THAT INCOME ATTRACTS TAX AS SOON AS IT ACCRUES. THE APPLICATION OR DESTINATION OF THE INCOME HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ITS ACCRUAL OR TAXABILITY. IN OTHER WORDS, INCOME - TAX IS ATTRACTED WHEN THE INCOME IS EARNED. TAXABILITY OF INCOME IS NOT DEPENDANT UPON ITS DESTINATION OR THE MANNER OF ITS UTILISATION. HENCE IT WAS TO BE EXAMINED BY LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THAT WHETHER THE ACCRUAL OF THE SAID INCOME WAS SUBJECT TO THE LIABILITY OR IT WAS SIMPLY A PAYMENT TO HUSBAND WHEN THE AMOUNT WAS AVAILABLE IN HAND. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ALSO NOT EXAMINED THAT WHETHER THERE WAS ANY NEXUS TOWARDS THE COST OF PURCHASE, HENCE NOT JUSTIFIED TO HOLD THAT RS.5,00,000/ - WAS CLAIME D TOWARDS THE COST OF PURCHASE OF THE RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY. IT APPEARS THAT HE HAD FAILED TO GIVE THE BASIS OF SUCH FINDING. WE, THEREFORE, DEEM IT JUSTIFIABLE TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE STAGE OF FIRST APPEAL SO THAT THE ISSUE OF ADMISSIBILITY OF DEDUCTION CAN BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE HEREIN ABOVE. RESULTANTLY THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE MAY BE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE ONLY. 7 . GROUND NO. 2: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES NOF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF THE DEDUCTION OF RS.4,88,620/ - CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 57 OF THE I.T. ACT, BEING INTEREST NPAID TO HER HUSBAND WHEN THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF THE LOAN ITSELF. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN INTEREST INCOME OF RS.5,94,595/ - . IN RESPECT OF THE SAID ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED A DEDUCTION OF RS.4,88,620/ - U/S 57 OF I.T. ACT. THE EXPLANATION OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE INTEREST PAID WAS CLAIMED AS 5 ITA NO. 181/NAG/2014 AN EXPENDITURE AGAINST THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED. THE AO, HOWEVER, DECLINED TO AGREE, H ENCE HE DISALLOWED THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS.4,88,620/ - . 8 . WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION AS UNDER AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE ON CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE MATERIAL FACTS, IT IS SEEN FROM THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SHRI SANDEEP SURI I N THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.2008 TO 31.3.2009 THAT THE APPELLANT HAS PAID INTEREST OF RS.4,88,620/ - TO SHRI SANDEEP SURI. THIS ACCOUNT AS MENTIONED IN PARA - 5.4 ABOVE, WAS AVAILABLE BEFORE THE LD. AO, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS, AS IS OBVIOUS FROM THE FACT THAT THE LD. AO HIMSELF HAS ANALYZED THE ENTRIES OF CASH TRANSACTIONS IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD; OF THE APPELLANT IN PARA - 4 DOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. THUS, THE ENTRY OF THE INTEREST PA ID BY THE APPELLANT ON THE LOANS TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT FROM HER HUSBAND, IS VERIFIABLE WITH REFERENCE TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. A COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SHRI SANDEEP SURI IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT IS NOTHING BUT REPRODUCTION OF ENTR IES EMANATING FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT WITH JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD.. THEREFORE, AS PER THIS LEDGER ACCOUNT WITH BANK I.E. THE EXTRACT OF BANK ACCOUNT, THE NET BALAQNCE OF RS.99,37,989/ - HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT AFTER INTEREST ON LOAN ACCOUNT OF RS. 4,88,620/ - AS ON 31.3.2009 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL I .E. AY 2009 - 10. HENCE THE INTEREST PAYMENT CANNOT BE SUSPECTED ON THE BALANCE OUTSTANDING AGAINST THE APPELLANT FROM SHRI SANDEEP SURI. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,88,620/ - MADE BY WAY OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE, IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 9 . HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO FALLACY IN THE RELIEF GIVEN BY LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) SPECIALLY WHEN HE HAS PERUSED THE TRANSACTION APPEARING IN JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD. A FINDING WAS GIVEN THAT THE ENTRY OF THE INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE LOANS TAKEN FROM HER HUSBAND WERE VERIFIABLE. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ALSO EXAMINED THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE 6 ITA NO. 181/NAG/2014 PARTIES AND TH EREUPON GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE INTEREST PAYMENT COULD NOT BE SUSPECTED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL WE HEREBY AFFIRM THE FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE. 10 . GROUND NO. 3: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,53,000/ - OUT OF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,10,500/ - MADE BY THE AO AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES REPRESENTING UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN HER BANK ACCOUNT WHEN THE ASSESSE E HAD FAILED TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HER CLAIM OF HAVING RECEIVED CASH GIFTS OF RS.6,50,000/ - FROM HER HUSBAND ON HER BIRTHDAY AND THE BIRTHDAY OF HER CHILDREN. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT IN THE BANK AC COUNT WITH JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD. THERE WERE ENTRIES OF CASH TRANSACTIONS. THE AO HAD TABULATED THE DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS ON DIFFERENT DATES AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH A CASH FLOW STATEMENT. ACCORDING TO THE AO THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE A SSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF OPENING CASH OF RS.1,57,000/ - . CERTAIN OTHER DEPOSITS WERE ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE AO. HENCE THE AO TAXED RS.4,10,500/ - IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER : THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPT ABLE LOOKING INTO FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. SHE DOES NOT HAVE ANY CASH BOOK. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT SHE HAD OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS.1,57,000/ - SHOWN IN THE CASH BOOK TO DEPOSIT THE MONEY IN BANK. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBMITTED THE STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT SHE HAD CASH IN HAND OF RS.1,57,000/ - WHICH IS A SUBSTANTIAL AVAILABLE WITH HER AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR. FURTHER THE SOURCE OF OTHER DEPOSITS APART FROM OPENI NG CASH IN HAND IS SOUGHT TO BE EXPLAINED ON THE BASIS OF CASH GIFTS RECEIVED FROM THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE, ON BIRTHDAYS OF ASSESSEE AND HER CHILDREN. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBSTANTIATED THIS CLAIM WITH ANY OTHER EVIDENCE SUCH AS WITHDRAWAL FROM HUSBAND S BANK ACCOUNT. THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITHOUT BASIS AND A SELF SERVING 7 ITA NO. 181/NAG/2014 ONE. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT, WHENEVER ANY AMOUNT IS CREDITED TO ASSESSEES ACCOUNT THEN THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE ABOVE CREDIT S. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF RS.3,00,000/ - DEPOSITED ON 04 - 07 - 2008 IN THE BANK AND WHICH WAS RETURNED ON 12 - 09 - 2008 IS ACCEPTABLE. HOWEVER, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN RESPECT OF HE OTHER CASH DEPOSITS. THE OTH ER CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO [RS.7,10,500/ - ( - ) RS.3,00,000/ - ] RS.4,10,500/ - IS CONSIDERED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM OTHER SOURCES AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) ARE SEPARATELY INITIATED. 11 . WHEN THE MA TTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS CONFIRMED THE OPENING BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.1,57,000/ - AND THE BALANCE WAS DELETED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER : ON CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT ADDUCED ANY EVIDENCE AS REGARDS TO THE OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS.1,57,000/ - . THEREFORE, THE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN ADDING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS. 1,57,000/ - IS CONFI RMED. HOWEVER, OTHER ADDITION MADE BY THE AO, BEING GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS, INCLUDING BIRTHDAYS OF THE APPELLANT AND HER CHILDREN FROM HER HUSBAND AND RELATIVES CANNOT BE RULED OUT FOR WANT OF CONTRARY EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON REC ORD. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE LD. AO THAT THERE WAS NO WITHDRAWAL IN THE BANK ACCOUNT TO THE DONOR HUSBAND OF THE APPELLANT, TO MY OPINION, IS NOT A SUFFICIENT REASON TO DISBELIEVE THE GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT, WHICH ARE CUSTOMARY IN NATURE. THEREFORE, OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 4,10,500/ - , ADDITION OF RS.1,57,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED OPENING BALANCE IS CONFIRMED, AND THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS.2,53,000/ - IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 1 2 . HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSION S OF BOTH THE SIDES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF EACH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK. AS PER THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE HAVE NOTED THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN DEPOSITS, THE SOURCES OF WH ICH WERE THE BIRTHDAY GIFTS FROM HUSBAND ETC. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE OR A COGENT MATERIAL, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS 8 ITA NO. 181/NAG/2014 GRANTED RELIEF IN RESPECT OF SUCH DEPOSITS. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS PROCEEDED TO TAX ONLY THE OPENING BALANCE AT RS.1,5 7,000/ - . HOWEVER, IN OUR OPINION, THE BALANCE OF JUSTICE DEMANDS TO FURTHER R EJECT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABSENCE OF CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF A BIRTHDAY GIFT OF RS.50,000/ - AND CERTAIN OTHER SUCH GIFTS SHOWN AS BIRTHDAY OF DAUG HTER OF RS.50,000/ - ON ADHOC BASIS. RESULTANTLY THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) SHALL NOW BE ENHANCED BY A FURTHER SUM OF RS.1 LAKH. THUS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 1 3 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL O F THE REVENUE IS PARTL Y ALLOWED AS PER SUPRA. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF OCT., 2015. SD/ - SD/ - ( SHAMIM YAHYA) (MUKUL K. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. JUDICIAL MEM BER NAGPUR, DATED: 30 TH OCT., 2015. 9 ITA NO. 181/NAG/2014 COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. SMT. URVI SANDEEP SURI, C - 701, KANHA REGENCY, RAJ NAGAR, KATOL ROAD, NA GPUR - 440 001. 2. I.T.O., WARD - 2(2), NAGPUR. 3. C.I.T., CONCERNED 4. CIT(APPEALS) - I, NAGPUR. 5. D.R., ITAT, NAGPUR. 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APP ELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WAKODE