I.T.O Wd - 55(2),kolkata., Kolkata V. Dr. Anisur Rahman, Kolkata

ITA 220/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4905 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT KR KUREEL JCIT LD
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Gift
• Section: 143(3); 147; 68

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 220/KOL/2013 A AM DR. ANISUR RAHMAN 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A BENCH, K OLKATA BEFORE : SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 220/KOL/2013 A.Y : 2004-05 I.T.O WARD 55(3), KOLKATA VS. DR. ANISUR R AHMAN PAN: AFVPR 3334N (APPELLANT) (RESPO NDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT/ S HRI RAJAT KR. KUREEL, JCIT, LD.SR.DR FOR THE RESPONDENT/: NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DATE OF HEARING: 09-03-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21-03-20 16 ORDER SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM : THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), XXXVI, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 939/CIT(A)-XXXVI/KOL/0 9-10/1561 DATED 08.11.2012 AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FRAMED F OR THE ASST YEAR 2004-05 U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE F IND THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEEN DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF T HE CASE AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR AND BASED ON MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, THERE IS A DELAY OF 17 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE WHICH IS S UPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT EXPLAINING THE DELAY FOR EACH DAY. HENCE WE DEEM IT FIT TO CON DONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE HEREIN. ITA NO. 220/KOL/2013 A AM DR. ANISUR RAHMAN 2 3. THE FIRST ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER A SUM OF RS. 3,69,000/- CLAIMED TO BE GIFTS RECEIVED FROM DAUGHTER BY THE A SSESSEE COULD BE ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT IN THE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE . 3.1. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE LEA RNED AO OBSERVED THAT THE SUMS OF RS. 3,25,000/- AND RS. 44,000/- WERE FOUND CREDITED IN THE ASSESSEES BANK STATEMENT MAINTAINED WITH BOMBAY MERCANTILE COOPERATIVE BANK. WHEN ENQUIRED ABOUT THE SOURCES FOR THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT T HE SAID AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED AS GIFTS FROM THE ELEDEST DAUGHTER MRS.FARIAH RAHAMAN, WHO IS A RESIDENT OF MANCHESTER, UNITED KINGDOM AND IS EMPLOYED THERE. IT WAS EXPL AINED THAT FUNDS WERE REMITTED FROM U.K. IN POUNDS TO THE CREDIT OF HER SB ACCOUNT (SB A/C NO. 259) MAINTAINED WITH THE SAME BANK AS ASSESSEES IE BOMBAY MERCANTI LE COOPERATIVE BANK AND FROM THERE, VIDE TWO CHEQUES DRAWN IN ASSESSEES NAME, T HE GIFTS AMOUNTS OF RS. 3,25,000/- AND RS. 44,000/- WERE TRANSFERRED TO ASSESSEES BAN K ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED THE BANK STATEMENTS OF THE DONOR (I.E MRS. FARIAH RAHAMAN) TOGETHER WITH AN AFFIDAVIT FROM HER STATING THE FACTUM OF GIFT MADE BY HER TO HER FATHER. THE LEARNED AO DOUBTED THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE DAUGHTER (D ONOR) AND ACCORDINGLY BROUGHT TO TAX THE CREDITS OF RS. 3,69,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CA SH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. ON FIRST APPEAL, THE LEARNED CITA ON GOING THROUGH THE EVIDE NCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD, GAVE A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE SOURCE AND CREDITWORTH INESS OF THE DONOR IS PROVED AND THE MONIES HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED THROUGH REGULAR BANKIN G CHANNELS. ACCORDINGLY, HE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED AO. AGGRI EVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- 1. LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW IN DELETING RS 3,69,000/- ON THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE WERE GENUINE GIFTS FROM DAUGHTER. 3.2. THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AO. ITA NO. 220/KOL/2013 A AM DR. ANISUR RAHMAN 3 3.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR. WE FIND FROM T HE RECORDS THAT THE MONIES HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED BY DAUGHTER MRS. FARIAH RAHMAN, WH O IS A RESIDENT OF MANCHESTER, UNITED KINGDOM, TO HER FATHER (ASSESSEE HEREIN) AS GIFT WHICH ARE DULY SUPPORTED BY HER BANK STATEMENTS AND AFFIDAVIT CONFIRMING THE GI FT. THE FACT THAT SHE IS A RESIDENT OF MANCHESTER AND EMPLOYED THEREIN IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE DAUGHTER IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE. THE FACT THAT THE MONIES W ERE TRANSFERRED BY MRS. FARIAH RAHAMAN FROM HER UK BANK ACCOUNT IN POUND STERLINGS TO HER INDIAN BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT IN DISPUTE. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE LEARNED AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CHANNELLISED HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME THROUGH HAWALA CHANNELS TO U K AND GOT IT BACK IN THE GUISE OF GIFT FROM HIS DAUGHTER. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, W E FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CITA IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROU ND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 4. THE NEXT ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL I S AS TO WHETHER A SUM OF RS. 5,70,000/- CLAIMED TO BE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM WIFE BY THE ASSE SSEE COULD BE ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT IN THE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE . 4.1. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE LEA RNED AO OBSERVED THAT A SUM OF RS. 5,70,000/- WAS CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE SAID CREDITS REPRESENT AMOUNT RECEIVED AS LOAN FROM HIS WIFE MRS. CHESFIDA RAHMAN WHO IN TURN HAD RECEIVED GIFT FROM HER MOTHE R. THE ASSESSEE ALSO TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT THE ASSESSEES MOTHER IN LAW , 82 YEAR S OLD LADY RESIDING IN KASHMIR, WHO WAS IN DEATH BED, SOLD HER PROPERTY AND DISTRIBUTED THE SALE CONSIDERATION INCLUDING THE ADVANCE RECEIVED THEREON TO HER DAUGHTERS AND SONS. ACCORDINGLY, THE SHARE PERTAINING TO HER DAUGHTER (ASSESSEES WIFE ) WAS GIFTED WHO I N TURN GAVE IT AS LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED CONFIRMATION FO R HAVING GIVEN THE LOAN AND ALSO APPEARED BEFORE THE LEARNED AO AND CONFIRMED THE SA ME FACT. THE LEARNED AO HOWEVER ADDED THE SAID CREDIT OF RS. 5,70,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. ON FIRST APPEAL, THE LEARNED CITA APPRECI ATED THE FACTUAL CONTENTIONS OF THE ITA NO. 220/KOL/2013 A AM DR. ANISUR RAHMAN 4 ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITION. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- 2. LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW IN DELETING RS 5,70,000/- ON THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE ARE SALE PROCEEDS GIFTED TO HIS WIFE BY HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW. 4.2. THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AO. 4.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR. WE FIND FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS. 5,70,000/- AS LOAN FROM HIS WIFE MRS. CHASFIDA RAHMAN. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED THAT HIS WIFE HAD RECEIVED GIFT FROM HER MOTHER. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT HER MOTHER WHO WAS 82 YEARS OLD AND LYING IN D EATH BED , SOLD HER PROPERTY AND GAVE THE SHARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEES WIFE. HENCE IT WAS PROVED THAT OUT OF INCOME OF MOTHER IN LAW OF ASSESSEE, SHE HAS GIFTED THE SAME TO HER DAUGHTER (ASSESSEES WIFE) . IT IS A COMMON PRACTICE IN A NY FAMILY TO DISTRIBUTE THE ASSETS TO THE CHILDREN WHICH INCLUDES OUT OF SALE OF PROPERTY TO AVOID ANY LEGAL DISPUTES AND TO MAINTAIN THE HARMONY OF THE FAMILY. IN THE INSTA NT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED SOURCE OF SOURCE. MOREOVER, THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD EVEN APPEARED BEFORE THE LEARNED AO AND CONFIRMED THE FACT OF ADVANCING LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CITA HAD RI GHTLY DELETED THE SAID ADDITION AND WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 5. THE NEXT ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER A SUM OF RS. 4,50,000/- CLAIMED TO BE TRANSFER FROM ONE BANK TO ANOTHER BAN K ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE COULD BE ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE . ITA NO. 220/KOL/2013 A AM DR. ANISUR RAHMAN 5 5.1. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE LEA RNED AO OBSERVED THAT A SUM OF RS. 4,50,000/- WAS FOUND CREDITED IN HSBC BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE , THE SOURCE FOR WHICH WAS EXPLAINED TO BE FUNDS TRANSFERRED FROM AS SESSEES OWN BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH BOMBAY MERCANTILE COOPERATIVE BANK . ACCORDING TO LEARNED AO, THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH BOMBAY MERCANTILE COOPERATIVE BANK BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE BALANCE SHEET FIL ED ALONG WITH THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. THE LEARNED AO DISBELIEVED THE SAME AND BRO UGHT TO TAX A SUM OF RS. 4,50,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. ON FIRST APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE SAID ADDITION. AGGRIEVED, THE RE VENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- 3. LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW IN DELETING RS 4,50,000/- ON THE MERE ARGUMENT BY THE ASSESSEE THA T THEY ARE INTER- BANKING TRANSACTIONS. 5.2. THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AO. 5.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR. WE FIND FROM T HE RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MERELY TRANSFERRED CERTAIN AMOUNTS FROM HIS BOMBAY MERCANTILE COOPERATIVE BANK ACCOUNT TO HIS HSBC ACCOUNT. WE FIND THAT THE LEA RNED AO HAD ALMOST ADDED ALL THE CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH BOMBAY MERCANTILE COOPERATIVE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. HAVING SAID SO, HE OUGHT N OT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PU RPOSE OF MAKING THIS ADDITION OF RS. 4,50,000/-. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE VARIOUS CREDITS TH AT WERE OTHERWISE ADDED AS INCOME IN PREVIOUS GROUNDS ITSELF, WOULD ACT AS A SOURCE F OR MAKING THIS FUND TRANSFER TO HSBC ACCOUNT . ULTIMATELY, IT IS ONLY A QUESTION OF FU ND TRANSFER FROM ONE BANK ACCOUNT (I.E BOMBAY MERCANTILE COOPERATIVE BANK) TO HSBC BANK AC COUNT. THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY ELEMENT OF INCOME INVOLVED THEREIN. THE SO URCE IS EXPLAINED BY THE LEARNED AO HIMSELF AND HENCE IT DOES NOT BECOME UNEXPLAINED . HENCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE FACT S OF THE INSTANT CASE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CITA HAD RI GHTLY DELETED THE SAID ADDITION AND ITA NO. 220/KOL/2013 A AM DR. ANISUR RAHMAN 6 WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. THE NEXT ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS A S TO WHETHER A SUM OF RS. 6,89,410/- COULD BE ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6.1. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THERE W ERE CERTAIN CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT TO THE TUNE OF RS. 6,89,410.57 . THE ASSESSEE EXPL AINED THAT THE SAME REPRESENTS SALE PROCEEDS ARISING OUT OF HIS TRADING BUSINESS AND SI X TRANSACTIONS WERE MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND INCOME FROM SUCH BUSINESS WER E OFFERED U/S 44AF OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED AO HOWEVER BROUGHT THE SAID CREDIT TO T AX AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. ON FIRST APPEAL, IT WAS PLEADED THA T THE LEARNED AO HAVING ALREADY TAXED THE PROFIT FROM BUSINESS U/S 44AF OF THE ACT, OUGHT NOT TO HAVE AGAIN TAXED THE ENTIRE SALE PROCEEDS OF RS. 6,89,410.57. THE LEAR NED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE IN THIS REGARD. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- 4. LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW IN DELETING RS 6,89,410/- MERELY REASONING THAT THE MONEY ARE TRA DE RECEIPTS. 6.2. THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AO. 6.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR. IT IS NOT IN D ISPUTE THAT THE CREDITS IN THE SUBJECT MENTIONED BANK ACCOUNT TO THE TUNE OF RS. 6,89,410/ - REPRESENTS SALE PROCEEDS OF TRADING BUSINESS FOR WHICH INCOME IS ALREADY OFFERE D TO TAX U/S 44AF OF THE ACT. HENCE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF TREATING THE SAID SAL E PROCEEDS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. HENCE WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO. 4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 220/KOL/2013 A AM DR. ANISUR RAHMAN 7 7. THE NEXT ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS A S TO WHETHER A SUM OF RS. 9,00,000/- REPRESENTING INVESTMENT MADE IN MUTUAL FUNDS COULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE. 7.1. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE ASS ESSEE INVESTED IN TWO MUTUAL FUNDS FOR RS. 4,50,000/- EACH ON 18.7.2003 AND REDEEMED THE S AME ON 12.2.2004 FOR RS. 4,53,487.35 EACH. THE ASSESSEE OFFERED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THE QUERY WITH REGARD TO SOURCE FOR PURCHASE OF TWO MUTUAL FUNDS, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT HE HAD RE CEIVED THE SUMS OF RS. 2,00,000/- ; RS. 3,50,000/- FROM HIS WIFE AND RS. 3,50,000/- FRO M BOMBAY MERCANTILE COOPERATIVE BANK WHICH WERE CREDITED IN HSBC ACCOUNT AND FROM H SBC ACCOUNT, TWO CHEQUES FOR RS. 4,50,000/- EACH WERE ISSUED FOR PURCHASE OF MUTUAL FUNDS. THIS EXPLANATION WAS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY BY THE LEARNED AO WHO B ROUGHT THE INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUNDS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 9,00,000/- TO TAX AS UNEXP LAINED INVESTMENT. ON FIRST APPEAL, THE LEARNED CITA APPRECIATED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE FOR MAKING I NVESTMENTS IN MUTUAL FUNDS AND DELETED THE ADDITION. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- 5. LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW IN DELETING RS 9,00,000/- ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE PURCHASE OF MUTUAL FUND UNITS IS MADE OUT OF DISCLOSED/TAXED INCOME. 7.2. THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AO. 7.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR. IT IS NOT IN D ISPUTE THAT THE CHEQUES FOR PURCHASE OF TWO MUTUAL FUNDS WERE ISSUED FROM HSBC BANK ACCO UNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE IMMEDIATE SOURCE OF CREDIT FOR ISSUING THESE CHEQUE S WAS EXPLAINED TO BE FUNDS TRANSFERRED FROM BOMBAY MERCANTILE COOPERATIVE BANK TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 3,50,000/- AND REMAINING RS. 5,50,000/- RECEIVED FROM HIS WIFE . WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED AO HAD ALREADY GIVEN A FINDING THAT BOMBAY MERCANTILE COOPERATIVE BANK ACCOUNT IS ITA NO. 220/KOL/2013 A AM DR. ANISUR RAHMAN 8 MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE MAKING CERTAIN ADD ITIONS THAT WERE ADJUDICATED IN PREVIOUS GROUNDS. WE ALSO FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAD I NDEED RECEIVED CERTAIN MONIES AS LOANS FROM HIS WIFE MRS CHASFIDA RAHMAN WHICH WERE CREDITED IN HSBC BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS ISSUE WAS ADJUDICATED IN PRE VIOUS GROUNDS HEREINABOVE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE FOR PURCHASE OF MUTUAL FUNDS AND HAD ALSO OFFERED THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON REDEMP TION OF THE SAME WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN TAXED BY THE LEARNED AO. IN THESE CIRCUMSTAN CES, THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR TREATING THE INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUNDS OF RS. 9,00,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED . HENCE WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CITA IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO. 5 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. THE LAST ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS A S TO WHETHER A SUM OF RS. 3,00,000/-, BEING THE AMOUNT TRANSFERRED FROM TWO MINOR DAUGHTE RS BANK ACCOUNT TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, COULD BE ADDED AS UNEXPLAI NED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 8.1. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE TWO MINOR DAUGHTERS OF THE ASSESSEE TRANSFERRED RS 3,00,000/- (1,50,000 * 2) TO THE BAN K ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE BANK ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED T HE SAME BEFORE THE LEARNED AO ON 23.12.2009. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED THE BANK STA TEMENTS OF THE TWO MINOR DAUGHTERS BEFORE THE LEARNED AO. THE LEARNED AO HOWEVER NOT BEING SATISFIED BROUGHT THE CREDIT OF RS. 3,00,000/-IN THE BANK ACC OUNT OF THE ASSESSEE TO TAX AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT, WHICH WA S DELETED BY THE LEARNED CITA IN FIRST APPEAL. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- 6. LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW IN DELETING RS 3,00,000/- CLAIMED AS GIFT FROM MINOR DAUGHTERS WHE N THE DAUGHTERS HAD NO INCOME OF THEIR OWN AND THE-MINOR DAUGHTERS' SOU RCE WAS NOT EXAMINED. ITA NO. 220/KOL/2013 A AM DR. ANISUR RAHMAN 9 8.2. THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AO. 8.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR. IT IS NOT IN D ISPUTE THAT THE MONIES WERE TRANSFERRED FROM TWO MINOR DAUGHTERS BANK ACCOUNT T O THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE BANK STATEMENTS OF TWO MINO R DAUGHTERS WERE ALSO PRODUCED BEFORE THE LEARNED AO. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE LEARNED AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CHANELLISED HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE BANK ACCO UNT OF THE TWO MINOR DAUGHTERS AND HAD RECEIVED IT BACK IN CHEQUES FROM THEM. NO THING PREVENTED THE LEARNED AO TO ENQUIRE ABOUT THE SOURCES OF CREDITS IN THE BANK AC COUNT OF THE TWO MINOR DAUGHTERS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CI TA HAD RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO. 6 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 9. THE GROUND NOS 7 & 8 RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 -03-20 16. SD/- SD/- ( N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ) ( M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATE : 21-03-2016 ITA NO. 220/KOL/2013 A AM DR. ANISUR RAHMAN 10 1. THE APPELLANT/INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 55(2) 54/ 1 RAFI AHMED KIDWAI ROAD, KOLKATA-700 016. 2 THE RESPONDENT/ DR. ANISUR RAHMAN 175 PARK ST, K OL-17. 3 /THE CIT, 4.THE CIT(A ) 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCH 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT REGISTRAR **PRADIP/SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWA RDED TO: