Prashant Kumar Gupta, Bulandshahr V. ITO, Bulandshahr

ITA 2447/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97448 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 07-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V R SONBHADRA
• Keywords: Gift

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM ITA NO.2447/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 PRASHANT KUMAR GUPTA, 2, SUNDERPURI, BULANDSHAHR. PAN: AJBPG3747N VS. ITO, WARD-3, BULANDSHAHR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SAURABH GUPTA, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI V.R. SONBHADRA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 07.10.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.10.2015 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 28.2.2011 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006-07. ITA NO.2447/DEL/2011 2 2. THE FIRST GROUND IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.1 LAC, BEING THE AMOUNT OF GIFT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE F ROM HIS MOTHER. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS A SALARIED PERSON EMPLOYED WITH M/S RASTOGI BOOK MART , ANSARI ROAD, CHAURAHA, BULANDSHAHAR. A SUM OF RS.1 LAC WAS CLAIM ED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AS GIFT FROM HIS MOTHER, SMT. LEELA DEVI A GARWAL WHICH WAS CREDITED TO HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT. ON BEING CALLED U PON TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED SMT. LEELA DEVI AGARWAL BEFORE THE AO, WHO ADMITTED TO HAVE GIVEN THE SAID GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO NOTICED THAT SHE WAS NOT EARLIER FILING HER RETURNS OF INCOME AND THERE WAS NO SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.1 LAC , WHICH WAS ALLEGEDLY GIFTED TO THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED INCOME OF RS.1 LAC VIDE HIS LE TTER DATED 26.11.2007, WHICH WAS RECORDED IN THE ORDER SHEET ENTRY OF THE SAME DATE. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD H IMSELF SURRENDERED ITA NO.2447/DEL/2011 3 THIS AMOUNT BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE CANNOT BE ANY REASO N TO RE-AGITATE THE SAME ISSUE IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL/EVIDENCE. SINCE THERE IS NO OPPOSING MATE RIAL TO DEVIATE FROM THE SURRENDER MADE BEFORE THE AO, WE HOLD THAT THIS ADDITION WAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 5. THE SECOND GROUND IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.2 LAC. THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS.2 LAC IN H IS BANK ACCOUNT, SPLITTED INTO RS.90,000/-, RS.90,000/- AND RS.20,00 0/- ON 26.9.2005, 27.9.2005 AND 28.9.2005. ON BEING CALLED UPON TO E XPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SUCH DEPOSIT, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THIS WAS OUT OF HIS PAST SAVINGS. NOT CONVINCED, THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.2 LAC. THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE SAME. 6. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A SALARIED PERSON EMPLOYED WITH A PRIVATE PARTY. THE LD. AR CONTENDE D THAT ALL THE SAVINGS WERE CENTRALIZED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BAN K ACCOUNT FOR THE ITA NO.2447/DEL/2011 4 PURPOSE OF PURCHASING A PROPERTY AND THE SUM OF RS. 2 LAC REPRESENTED SUCH SAVINGS DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT BEFORE PURCH ASE OF PROPERTY. CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN A HOLISTIC MANNER, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE GAVE A REASONABLE EXPLANATION ABOUT THE SO URCE OF DEPOSIT OF RS.2 LAC IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. WE, THEREFORE, ORDER FOR THE DELETION OF THIS ADDITION. 7. THE LAST GROUND IS AGAINST CONFIRMATION OF ADDIT ION OF RS.12,000/- OUT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHO WN ANY DRAWINGS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT HIS WIFE, WHO WAS RUNNING A BEAUTY PARLOUR, WITHDREW A SUM OF RS.48,000/- FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THE AO ESTIMATED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT RS.5,000/- PER MONTH AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.60,000 /- BY DISCARDING THE EXPLANATION ABOUT THE ASSESSEES WIFE CONTRIBUT ING RS.48,000/-. THE LD. CIT(A) REDUCED THE ADDITION TO RS.12,000/-. 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSE ES WIFE WAS RUNNING A BEAUTY PARLOUR FROM WHICH CERTAIN INCOME WAS EARNED AND A SUM OF ITA NO.2447/DEL/2011 5 RS.48,000/- WAS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR HOU SEHOLD EXPENSES. THE AO HAS SIMPLY MADE AN ESTIMATE OF RS.5,000/- PE R MONTH TOWARDS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WHICH IS NOT BASED ON ANY COGENT MATERIAL. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIE D IN SUSTAINING THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS.12,000/- BEING THE DIFFERENC E BETWEEN SUCH ESTIMATED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AND THE AMOUNT CONTRIB UTED BY THE ASSESSEES WIFE. WE, THEREFORE, ORDER FOR THE DELE TION OF THIS ADDITION. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08.10.201 5. SD/- SD/- [SUCHITRA KAMBLE] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, 08 TH OCTOBER, 2015. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.