SMT. SHWETA GOYAL, JAIPUR V. ITO, WARD-5(2), JAIPUR

ITA 202/JPR/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6988 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 20-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONISHA CHOUDHARY ACIT A
• Assessee Lawyers: C L YADAV
• Keywords: Gift; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 64; 147; 148

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S,A JAIPUR JH LAANHI XKSLKBZ] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SING H YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA. NO. 202/JP/2020 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11 SMT. SHWETA GOYAL W/O SH. KULDEEP GOYAL B-279, JANTA COLONY, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE ITO, WARD-5(2), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AINPG 7191 B VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI C. L. YADAV (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SMT. MONISHA CHOUDHARY (ACIT) A LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 23/03/2021 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08/04/2021 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-II, JAIPUR DATED 16.01.2020 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2010-11 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUND S OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL)-2 ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000 WITHOUT APPRECIATING T HE FACTS. THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON WRONG ASSUMPTION AND CONTRARY CONJECTURE TO THE REAL FACTS. 2. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL)-2 ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000 OF UNEXPLAINED SOURCE OF MARRIAGE GIFTS RE CEIVED ON THE ITA NO. 202/JP/2020 SMT. SHWETA GOYAL VS. ITO 2 OF MARRIAGE OF THE APPELLANT FROM RELATIVES. THE GI FT RECEIVED WERE PERTAIN TO THE A.Y. 2009-10. THE ADDITION WAS ILLEG AL AND WAS ALSO CONTRARY TO THE REAL FACTS AND AGAINST THE LAW THER EFORE THE ADDITION KINDLY MAY BE DELETED AND QUESTED. 3. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL)-2 FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FINDINGS OF LD. AO WARD 5(2), JAIPUR, IN HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 09 .10.2019, THAT THE AFFIDAVITS PRODUCED IN THE SHAPE OF EVIDE NCES SUBMITTED BY THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE, APPEAR TO THE GENUINE AND THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSIT APPEARS TO BE EXPLAINED 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD NOT FILED RETURN FOR AY 2010-11. ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH OF RS.11,00,000/- IN HER BANK AC COUNT WITH HDFC BANK, NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 30.03.2017 IN RE SPONSE TO WHICH RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 29.04.2017 SHOWING AN INCOME OF RS.1,90,460/- WHICH WAS ASSESSED U/S 143(3) R/W 147 BY THE AO AT RS. 6,90,460/- CREATING A DEMAND OF RS. 2,14,970/-. AD DITION WAS MADE FOR RS. 5,00,000/- TOWARDS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT ON AC COUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A ) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AND AGAINST THE SAID FINDINGS, THE ASSESSE E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH OF RS.17,25,000/- IN HE R BANK ACCOUNTS. THE SOURCE OF THESE DEPOSITS WAS AVAILABILITY OF OP ENING CASH BALANCE AND CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS.5,00,000/- FROM ONE OF HE R BANK ACCOUNTS. THE SOURCE OF THE OPENING CASH BALANCE WAS OUT OF C ASH GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE OCCASION OF HER MARRIAGE FRO M FRIENDS AND RELATIVES AND CASH SAVINGS WITH HER OVER A PERIOD O F SIX YEARS. THE ITA NO. 202/JP/2020 SMT. SHWETA GOYAL VS. ITO 3 ASSESSEE HAD BEEN WORKING WITH ICICI SINCE 2005. T HE ASSESSEE PROVIDED COPIES OF GIFT DEEDS ALONG WITH COPIES OF IDS OF THE DONORS. SHE PROVIDED COPY OF HER MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE TO SH OW THAT THE IMPUGNED CASH GIFTS WERE RECEIVED ON THE OCCASION O F MARRIAGE. IT MAY NOT BE OUT OF PLACE TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE BE LONGS TO AGARWAL COMMUNITY WHERE HUGE CASH GIFTS ARE CUSTOMARY. 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO DOUBTED THE CASH GI FTS OF RS. 5,00,000/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HER GR AND MOTHER-INLAW, ASHARFI DEVI, AND HER GREAT GRAND-MOTHER-IN-LAW, KA MPOORI DEVI. HE HELD THAT THE DONORS ARE NON TAX PAYERS AND DO NOT HAVE ANY SOURCE OF INCOME AND ALSO DO NOT MAINTAIN ANY BANK ACCOUNT. T HE AO HAS BASED HIS CONCLUSION ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. HE WAS TOLD THAT THE DONORS HAVE REGULAR INCOME FROM SALE OF MILK AND CATTLE FE ED. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT THE LD.AO BEFORE MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION DID NOT EVEN ISSUE A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IN THIS REGARD. HAD HE DONE SO, THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE ADDUCED FURTHER EVIDENCE TO SUB STANTIATE HER STAND. THE AO DISBELIEVED THE EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSI ON PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE, ON HIS WHIMS AND FANCY. AS A MATTER OF FA CT, THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED THE ONUS LAY ON HER BY PROVIDING TH E CONFIRMATIONS AND ID OF THE DONORS. IF THE AO HAD ANY DOUBTS, HE COUL D HAVE MADE FURTHER ENQUIRIES INDEPENDENTLY BUT HE CHOSE NOT TO DO SO A ND STRAIGHT AWAY WENT ON TO MAKE THE ADDITIONS. 5. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF GIFT DEEDS FROM THE DONORS, VIZ. SMT. ASHARFI DEVI AND SMT. KAMPOORI DEVI WERE FILED. AFFIDAVIT O F SHRI BHAGWAN DAS, ITA NO. 202/JP/2020 SMT. SHWETA GOYAL VS. ITO 4 WHO WAS MADE CUSTODIAN OF THE CASH GIFTS WAS ALSO F ILED. THE LD.CIT(A), HAVING POWERS CO-TERMINUS WITH THAT OF AO, COULD HA VE HERSELF EXAMINED THESE DOCUMENTS BY MAKING FURTHER ENQUIRI ES, BUT SHE CHOSE TO SEND THESE DOCUMENTS TO THE AO FOR REMAND REPORT . THE AO, AFTER EXAMINING SHRI BHAGWAN DAS, THE CUSTODIAN OF CASH G IFTS AND SATISFYING HIMSELF, ACCEPTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFTS MADE . BUT SURPRISINGLY THE LD.CIT(A) NOT CONCURRING WITH THE AO, HELD THA T ONLY ON THE BASIS OF AFFIDAVIT, WHICH IS A SELF SERVING DOCUMENT, THE GIFTS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS GENUINE. 6. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SHIV DHOOTI PEARLS & INVESTMENT LTD. [2015] 64 TAXM ANN.COM 329 (DELHI) THAT IN TERMS OF SECTION 68, ASSESSEE IS LI ABLE TO DISCLOSE ONLY SOURCE(S) FROM WHERE HE HAS HIMSELF RECEIVED CREDIT AND IT IS NOT BURDEN OF ASSESSEE TO SHOW SOURCE(S) OF HIS CRE DITOR NOR IS IT BURDEN OF ASSESSEE TO PROVE CREDITWORTHINESS OF SOURCE(S) OF SUB- CREDITORS. WITH THE PRODUCTION OF GIFT DEED AND IDE NTITY OF THE DONORS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION (GIFT ON MAR RIAGE) THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED INITIAL ONUS PLACED ON HER. IN THE E VENT, THE REVENUE STILL HAD A DOUBT WITH REGARD TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE T RANSACTIONS IN ISSUE, OR AS REGARDS THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONORS, I T WOULD HAVE HAD TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS WHICH HAD SHIFTED ON TO IT. A BA LD ASSERTION BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE DONORS REM AINED UNVERIFIED AND SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF AFFIDAVIT, GIFT SHOWN CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS GENUINE IS A LONG DRAWN CONCLUSION, AND IS OF NO AV AIL. THE REVENUE WAS REQUIRED TO PROVE THIS ALLEGATION. AN ALLEGATION BY ITSELF WHICH IS BASED ON ASSUMPTION WILL NOT PASS MUSTER IN LAW. THE REVE NUE WOULD BE ITA NO. 202/JP/2020 SMT. SHWETA GOYAL VS. ITO 5 REQUIRED TO BRIDGE THE GAP BETWEEN THE SUSPICIONS A ND PROOF IN ORDER TO BRING HOME THIS ALLEGATION. IF THE CIT(A) HAD ANY D OUBT ABOUT THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, IT COULD GATHER THE NECE SSARY INFORMATION FROM THE SOURCES TO WHICH THE SAID INFORMATION WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO. SHE COULD HAVE CROSS EXAMINED SHRI BHAGWAN DAS, WHICH S HE FAILED TO DO. ON THE CONTRARY, WITHOUT SEEKING ANY FURTHER CLARIF ICATION FROM THE AO ON THE REMAND REPORT, ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES AND CONJECTURES, SHE HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. IT WAS S UBMITTED THAT GIFT OF RS. 3,10,000/- MADE BY SHRI MITHHAN LAL GOYAL, W HO HAD ENTRUSTED THE GIFT AMOUNT TO HIS SON, SHRI BHAGWAN DAS, IN RE GARD TO WHICH DEPOSITION HAS BEEN MADE BY SHRI BHAGWAN DAS HAS BE EN ACCEPTED AS GENUINE. IN THE SAME AFFIDAVIT, SHRI BHAGWAN DAS HA S ALSO STATED TO HAVE RECEIVED GIFT AMOUNTS FROM SMT. ASHARFI DEVI A ND SMT. KAMPOORI DEVI TO BE HANDED OVER TO THE APPELLANT, WHICH IS N OT BEING HELD AS GENUINE BY THE LD.CIT(A). IT IS BEEN HELD IN A CATE NA OF CASES THAT A DOCUMENT IS TO READ AS A WHOLE. IT IS NOT OPEN TO T HE AUTHORITIES TO ACCEPT A PARTICULAR CONTENT AND TO REJECT THE OTHER , TO SUIT ITS PURPOSE. 7. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF MEHTA PAREK H & CO. VS. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT LAID D OWN THAT WHEN NONE OF THE AUTHORITIES CONSIDERED IT NECESSARY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE DEPONENT WITH REFERENCE TO THE STATEMENT MADE IN TH E AFFIDAVIT, IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE REVENUE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO CHA LLENGE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE DEPONENT M ADE BY THE DEPONENT IN THE AFFIDAVIT. IN OTHER WORDS, CONSEQUE NTLY THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED ASSUME THAT THE AUTHORITIES WERE SATIS FIED WITH THE AFFIDAVIT AS SUFFICIENT PROOF ON THIS POINT. ITA NO. 202/JP/2020 SMT. SHWETA GOYAL VS. ITO 6 8. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD ALSO LI KE TO RELY ON THE DECISION ON SIMILAR LINES RENDERED BY THE DELHI HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SILVER STREAK TRADING PVT. LTD. (2010) 326 ITR 418. FURTHER, THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF L. SOHANLAL GUP TA VS. CIT(1958) 33 ITR 786 WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE QUESTION OF REJECTI ON OF AFFIDAVITS. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT REJECTION OF AFFIDAVIT S IS NOT JUSTIFIED UNLESS ASSESSEE HAS EITHER BEEN CROSS EXAMINED OR CALLED U PON TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY HIM. 9. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO PLACE RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT I N THE CASE OF BEHARI LAL RAM CHARAN VS. ITO 1981 AIR 1585. THOUGH THIS D ECISION WAS RENDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 226(3), BUT THE ISSUE WAS WITH RESPECT TO VALIDITY OF AFFIDAVIT. IN THE APPEAL THE COURT HELD- (A) FOR REACHING AN OBJECTIVE CONCLUSION THAT IN HI S OPINION THE STATEMENT ON OATH MADE ON BEHALF OF THE GARNISHEE I S FALSE IN ANY MATERIAL PARTICULARS, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WOULD HAVE TO GIVE NOTICE TO THE PARTY CONCERNED, HOLD AN ENQUIRY FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THE STATEMENT ON OATH IS FALSE AND IF SO IN WHICH MATERIAL PARTICULARS AND WHAT AMOUNT IS IN FACT DUE FROM TH E GARNISHEE TO THE ASSESSEE. IN SUCH AN ENQUIRY, HE WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND REACH AN OBJECTIV E CONCLUSION. (B) ONCE A STATEMENT ON OATH IS MADE ON BEHALF OF T HE GARNISHEE THAT THE SUM DEMANDED IS NOT DUE FROM HIM TO THE ASSESSE E, THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THE STATEMENT IS FALSE IS ON THE REVENUE WHICH WOULD BE BOUND TO DISCLOSE TO THE GARNISHEE A LL SUCH EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL ON WHICH IT PROPOSES TO RELY. THE REVENUE ITA NO. 202/JP/2020 SMT. SHWETA GOYAL VS. ITO 7 SHOULD ALSO SHOW ON THE BASIS OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE THAT THE STATEMENT ON OATH IS FALSE. IT IS ONLY THEN THAT PE RSONAL LIABILITY FOR PAYMENT CAN BE IMPOSED ON THE GARNISHEE UNDER CLAUS E (VI). IN THE INSTANT CASE, AFTER RECEIVING THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ACCOUNTANT, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WITHOUT GIVING ANY NOTICE A ND WITHOUT HOLDING ANY ENQUIRY, STRAIGHTAWAY REACHED THE CONCL USION THAT THE STATEMENT IN THE AFFIDAVIT WAS FALSE AND HELD THE P ETITIONERS PERSONALLY LIABLE UNDER CLAUSE (VI). ALTHOUGH THE I NCOME TAX OFFICER DID SET OUT IN THE NOTICE DATED DECEMBER 31 ,1966 THE REASONS FOR REACHING THIS CONCLUSION HE DID NOT OFF ER ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE PETITIONERS TO SHOW THAT THE REA SONS THAT WEIGHED WITH HIM WERE NOT CORRECT. HIS DECISION WAS THEREFORE INVALID. NOTICE DATED DECEMBER 31,1966 AND JANUARY 11, 1967 MUST THEREFORE BE SET ASIDE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSION AND THE CASE LAWS W HICH ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS SUBM ITTED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/- MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 10. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE FINDING OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND OUR REFERENCE WAS DRAWN TO THE FIND INGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH ARE CONTAINED AT PARA 2.5 OF HER ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 2.5 GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 ARE BEING TAKEN UP TOGETHER AS THEY ARE INTERRELATED. I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE C ASE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND REMAND REPORT ALONGWITH REJOINDER. AS PER INFORMATION AVAI LABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSIT CASH OF RS. 11,00,000/- IN HER BANK ACCOUNT WITH HDFC DURING TH E YEAR ITA NO. 202/JP/2020 SMT. SHWETA GOYAL VS. ITO 8 UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FIL ED. THEREFORE, CASE WAS REOPENED U/S 148 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT 1961 RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.04.2017 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,90,460/- UNDER THE HEAD SALARY FROM M/S. NEELKANT H PUBLISHERS (P) LTD. AND INTEREST FROM BANK. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ASSESSEE FILED COP IES OF BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT SHOWING TWO BANK ACCOUNT, O NE IS PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHER HDFC BANK LTD. AS PE R ACCOUNTS STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, ASSESSEE WAS DEPOSITED CASH OF RS. 17,25,000/- DURING THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION. OUT OF TOTAL RS. 17,25,000/-, RS. 5, 00,000/- REMAIN UNVERIFIED AND SAME WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.5.1 DURING THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS AR OF THE ASSE SSEE FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A AND THE SAME WAS SENT TO ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENTS. VIDE REMAND REP ORT DATED 21.10.2019, ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT THEY CANN OT BE VERIFIED DUE TO DEATH OF DONORS AND ACCORDING TO HI M THEY APPEAR TO BE GENUINE. HOWEVER THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONORS REMAINED UNVERIFIED. 2.5.2. ON PERUSAL OF ABOVE REPORT, I FIND THAT IN S UPPORT OF GIFT, ASSESSEE FILED ONLY AFFIDAVIT OF FATHER IN LAW OF A SSESSEE WHICH IS SELF SERVING AND NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY BANK ACCOUNT, NOR WAS THERE ANY EVIDENCE OF SOURCE OF DO NORS. THEREFORE, SIMPLY ON BASIS OF THIS AFFIDAVIT, GIFT SHOWN CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS GENUINE. THEREFORE, THE ADDIT ION MADE IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL A RE DISMISSED. 11. FURTHER, LD. DR HAS RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING D ECISIONS:- M/S NOVA PROMOTERS & FINLEASE P. LTD. V S. CIT (201 2) 18 TAXMAN.COM 217 (DELHI HC) ITA NO. 202/JP/2020 SMT. SHWETA GOYAL VS. ITO 9 BLOWELL AUTO P. LTD. VS. ACIT (2009) 177 TAXMAN 26 1 (PUNJ & HARYANA) 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LIMITED ISSUE UNDER CONSID ERATION RELATES TO SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT AMOUNTING TO RS 5 LACS IN TH E BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEA R 2009-10 RELEVANT TO IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE EXPLANATI ON OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SAID DEPOSIT HAS BEEN MADE OUT OF CASH GIFTS RECEIVED BY HER ON THE OCCASION OF HER MARRIAGE WHICH WAS SO LEMISED ON 16.02.2009 I.E, DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 R ELEVANT TO PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. FURTHER, IT HAS BEEN SUBM ITTED THAT THE CASH GIFTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM SMT. ASHARFI DEVI, GR ANDMOTHER IN LAW AND SMT. KAMPOORI DEVI, GREAT GRANDMOTHER IN LAW. ADMITTEDLY, BOTH THESE RELATIVES HAD EXPIRED LONG BACK ON 20.05.2004 AND 28.01.2002 RESPECTIVELY AS PER THEIR DEATH CERTIFICATES ON REC ORD AND WERE NOT ALIVE AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT B EFORE THEIR DEATH, THEY HAVE APPOINTED SHRI BHAGWAN DAS, FATHER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE, AS CUSTODIAN AND HE HAS HANDED OVER THE CASH GIFTS TO THE ASSESSEE ON THEIR BEHALF AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE. IN SUPPORT, COPY OF GIFT DEEDS AND AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI BHAGWAN DAS WERE FILED BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) WHO HAS CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. IN HIS R EPORT, THE AO STATED THAT THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVITS WERE PRODUCED FOR VERI FICATION WHICH APPEARS TO BE GENUINE AND THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT APPEAR S TO BE EXPLAINED. WE THEREFORE FIND THAT ONCE THE AO HAS EXAMINED THE DOCUMENTS SO PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND RECORDED HIS SATISFACT ION REGARDING THE IDENTITY OF THE DONORS, THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT AND THE SOURCE OF ITA NO. 202/JP/2020 SMT. SHWETA GOYAL VS. ITO 10 SUCH GIFT, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE NECESSAR Y ONUS CAST ON HER AND NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN HER HANDS. HENCE, TH E ADDITION SO MADE IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08/04/2021. SDSD/- LANHI XKSLKBZ FOE FLAG ;KNO ( SANDEEP GOSAIN ) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 08/04/2021. *SANTOSH VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SMT. SHWETA GOYAL, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD-5(2), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE { ITA NO. 202/JP/2020} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR