Smt. Urvinder Kaur, Patiala V. ITO, Patiala

ITA 320/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80848 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J S NAGAR
• Assessee Lawyers: K P BAJAJ
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.320 /CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-101 SMT.URVINDER KAUR, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICIER, #433, STREET NO.7, WARD NO.2, GHUMAN NAGAR, PATIALA. PATIALA. PAN: AGRPK8701D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.P.BAJAJ RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.S.NAGAR, DR DATE OF HEARING : 16.07.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.08.2014 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), PATIALA DATED 28.1.2013 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE REA D AS UNDER: 1. THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ID. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,50,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED GIFT OF RS.7,50,000/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HER FATHER. 2. THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ID . CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,40,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH LEFT BY THE LATE HUSBAND OF THE AS SESSEE. 2 3. THE ISSUE VIDE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7,50,000/-. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED FOLLOWING G IFTS FROM THE RELATIVES: 1) RS. 98,000/- FROM HER MOTHER 2) RS. 50,000/- FROM HER SISTER 3) RS. 50,000/- FROM HER SISTER 4) RS.7,50,000/- FROM HER FATHER 5. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT SHE HAD LOST H ERE HUSBAND AND HER RELATIVES HELPED HER BY GIVING ABOVE MENTIO NED GIFTS IN ORDER TO INVEST IN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE GIFTS RECEIVED FROM MOTHER AND TWO SIS TERS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE GIFT RECEIVED FROM FATHER OF RS.7,50,000/- WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN VIEW O F THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINE SS OF THE DONOR AS ON THE DATE OF MAKING THE GIFT. FURTHER THE G IFT DEED FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BORE THUMB IMPRESSIONS OF THE DONOR , WHEREAS PHOTOCOPY OF THE PASSPORT OF THE SAID DONOR BORE HI S SIGNATURES AND THE SAID GIFT DEED WAS HELD TO BE NOT GENUINE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. THE CIT (APPEALS) UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 7. SHRI K.P.BAJAJ APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHR I J.S.NAGAR PUT IN APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND PUT FORWARD THEIR CONTENTIONS. 3 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE REPAIR OF TELEPHONE S AND FAX MACHINES AND TUITION WORK AS PER SYNOPSIS FILED BY ASSESSEE. THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPIRED ON 12.8.2008 WH EN SHE WAS OF 38 YEARS OF AGE AND HAD TWO MINOR CHILDREN. THE A SSESSEE HAD NO RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND ON THE DEATH OF THE HUSBAND H ER RELATIVES GAVE VARIOUS GIFTS IN ORDER TO ENABLE HER TO INVEST IN THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THE SAID GIFTS WERE RECEIVED I N CASH. THE GIFTS RECEIVED FROM MOTHER AND TWO SISTER TOTALING RS.1,98,000/- HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOW EVER, THE GIFT OF RS.7,50,000/- RECEIVED FROM FATHER HAD NOT BEEN ACCEPTED. THE DONOR SHRI AVTAR SINGH HAD MIGRATED FROM SINGAPORE IN 1997 AND HAD BROUGHT IN MONEY IN VARIOUS FORMS AGGREGATING R S.31,93,873/-. THE PROOF OF HAVING BROUGHT IN MONEY IN THE FORM OF CERTIFICATE FROM THE GOVERNMENT IN SINGAPORE ALONGWITH PHOTOCOP Y OF DEMAND DRAFT, WITHDRAWAL FROM CENTRAL PF BOARD IN SINGAPOR E ALONGWITH COPY OF DEMAND DRAFT AND ALSO COPY OF FDR OWNED BY THE DONOR ARE PLACED AT PAGES 8 TO 13 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE PL EA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WAS THAT AFTER THE DEMISE OF HIS SON-IN-LAW SHRI AVTAR SINGH GOT BED RIDDEN AND WAS UNABLE TO WRITE. THE GIFT OF RS.7,50,000/- GIVEN IN CASH WAS EVIDENCED BY A GIFT DEED ON WHICH THUMB IMPRESSION OF SHRI AVTAR SINGH WAS AVAILABLE. BBECAUSE OF HIS ILLNESS HE EXPIRED ON 15.6.2009 AND COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE IS PLACED AT PAGE 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED IS PLACED AT PAGE 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK . 9. IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES W HERE THE DONOR HAD SUFFICIENT FUNDS WHICH HE HAD BROUGHT IN FROM S INGAPORE MERELY BECAUSE THE GIFT WAS GIVEN AFTER LAPSE OF TI ME IN CASH TO HIS 4 DAUGHTER, DOES NOT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SAID PERSON IS NOT PROVED. WE FIND NO MERI T IN THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ESPECIALLY IN THE CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE ASSESSEE WHERE SHE HAD LOST HER HUSBAND AND EVEN HE R FATHER WAS BED RIDDEN AND ULTIMATELY EXPIRED WITHIN SHORT PERI OD. ACCORDINGLY, WE ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESS EE IN RELATION TO THE GIFT RECEIVED FROM HER FATHER TOTALING RS.7, 50,000/- IN CASH WHICH IN TURN WAS DEPOSITED IN HER BANK ACCOUNT AND UTILIZED FOR PURCHASE OF SMALL RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN WHICH THE AS SESSEE IS RESIDING ALONGWITH HER MINOR CHILDREN. IN VIEW TH EREOF, WE DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.7,50,000/- AND ALLOW THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 10. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E IS AGAINST ADDITION OF RS.1,40,000/-. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT OUT OF TOTAL CASH OF RS.2,60,000,, RS.1,20,000/- WAS HER S AVING AND RS.1,40,000/- WAS LEFT BY HER HUSBAND. THE ASSESS EE PREPARED CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND HAD ALSO FILED COPY OF HER CAPITAL ACCOUNT AS ON 31.3.2008 AS ALSO IN THE CASE OF HER HUSBAND SHRI MANJIT SINGH BEDI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE CA SH OF RS.1 LAC AS EXPLAINABLE AND TREATED THE BALANCE OF RS.1,40,0 00/- AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID ADDITION WAS UPHELD BY T HE CIT (APPEALS). 11. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE TOTAL CASH FROM HER SAVING AND ALSO LEFT BY HER HUSBAND WERE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT INCLUDING THE CASH IN HAND RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE DEMISE OF HER HUSBAND. IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND WOULD NOT HAVE SAVINGS 5 OF RS.2,40,000/-, OUT OF WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS ACCEPTED RS.1 LAC. REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) , WE DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,40,000/-. THE GROUND OF APPEAL N O.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 5 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 5 TH AUGUST, 2014 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH