Sh. Sanjeev Gupta, Ludhiana V. ACIT, C-1, Ludhiana

ITA 260/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7559 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCHSMD, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.260/CHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SH. SANJAY GUPTA VS. THE ASST. CIT C/O DASS KHANNA & CO. CIRCLE-1 B-XX-2515, PAKHOWAL ROAD LUDHIANA GURDEV NAGAR, LUDHIANA PAN NO. AEHPG3169F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI. AMARJIT KAMBOJ RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 13/06/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10/07/2018 ORDER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-2, LUDHIANA DATED 14/12/2017 PERTAIN ING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011- 12. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL: 1. THE LD. CIT(A)-2, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE:- A) BY ARBITRARILY AND WRONGLY SUSTAINED THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 4,06,000/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS TO JUSTIFY THE SOURCE OF CASH D EPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 2. THE ABOVE SAID ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF CASE. 3. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE APPEAL MAY PLEAS E BE ACCEPTED AND SUCH RELIEF MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED WHICH MAY BE DEEMED FIT AND P ROPER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON 13/06/2018 WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 1(A) BY ARBITRARILY AND WRONGLY SUSTAINED THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 4,06,000/- AS THE LD. A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS THE ASSESSEE, BEING A SALARIED EMPLOYE R, ADMITTEDLY DID NOT MAINTAIN ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 1(B) BY ARBITRARILY AND WRONGLY SUSTAINED THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 4,06,000/- MADE UNDER SECTION 68 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE DOCUMENTS SUBMI TTED BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS TO JUST IFY THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 2 THE REVISED GROUNDS HAVE BEEN ADMITTED KEEPING IN V IEW THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NTPC VS. CIT ( 229 ITR 383) 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 26.09.20 11 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 10,49,730/-. DURING THE ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,06,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DE POSITS IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED BY HIM IN THE ST ATE BANK OF INDIA TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.4,06,000/- IN THIS CASE ON ACCOUN T OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE MAINTA INED BY HIM WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA. THE MAIN REASON FOR MAKING THE IMPUGNED A DDITION WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EXPLANATION WITH REG ARD TO THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY H IM WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA ALTHOUGH HE HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT. THE AFORESAID ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS GIVEN ASSESSING OFFICER DURING ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS BUT HE FAILED TO DO THAT. LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE GENUINENESS OF GIFT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE PROVED AS THE FATHER IN LAW OF THE ASSES SEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. BEFORE US, DURING THE HEARING THE LD. AR ARGUED BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE IS AN EMP LOYEE OF A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AND RECEIVED AMOUNTS VARYING FROM RS. 90,00 0/- TO RS. 73,000/- FROM THE PERIOD 06/12/2010 TO 04/01/2011 AS A GIFT FROM HIS FATHER IN LAW SHRI. CHARAN DAS. AFFIDAVIT DT. 14/01/2017 WAS ALSO FILED CONFIR MING THE SAID GIFT. THE DONOR HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF HIS BANK ACCOUNT (SHRI CHARAN DAS) WITH SYNDICATE BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER 76402010012541 W HERE FROM THE SAID AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN FOR GIVING SUCH GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE. CONFIRMATION OF THE GIFT HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO CALLED INFORMATION FROM SYNDICATE BANK VIDE LETTER DT. 18/ 08/2017. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE DONOR SHRI CHARAN DAS COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEC AUSE HE STAYS AT JAMMU AND IS A SENIOR CITIZEN AND NOT KEEPING WELL. SINCE THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME STAYING AT JAIPUR THE DONOR COULD NOT BE PRESENT PH YSICALLY AT LUDHIANA OWING 3 TO THE DISTANCE, TIME AND HEALTH. HOWEVER ALL THE D OCUMENTARY EVIDENCES ALONGWITH THE SOURCES HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORI TIES AND ARGUED THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE PROVED AS THE FATHER IN LAW OF THE ASSESSEE WHO IS THE DONOR OF THE GIFT DID NOT APPEA R BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT OF THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW T HESE CASH DEPOSITS AS GIFTS. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH TH E PARTIES. 8. WE FIND THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWALS IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE DONOR DULY PROVED THE SOURCE OF THE GIFT. THE AFFIDAVIT AND CO NFIRMATION HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE MATTER HAS BEEN I NDEPENDENTLY GOT VERIFIED FROM THE SYNDICATE BANK BY THE AUTHORITIES. THE DON OR IS THE FATHER IN LAW OF THE ASSESSEE THUS IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE DEPOSITS IN T HE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENTLY PROVED REGARDING THEIR SOURCES. K EEPING IN VIEW THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT WITH THE FINDING S OF THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT THE GENUINENES S OF THE GIFT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE PROVED AS FATHER IN LAW OF THE ASSESSEE DID N OT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISREGARDING THE EVIDENCES PUT BE FORE AND HEREBY ORDER THAT THE ADDITION BE DELETED. 9. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 10/07/2018 AG COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR