ANITA, GURGAON V. ITO, WARD- 1(2), GURGAON

ITA 3295/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0121 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJOG KAPOOR SR DR
• Keywords: Gift; Set aside

Judgement Text

PAGE | 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC, NEW DELHI , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM / ITA NO. 3295/DEL/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ANITA, W/O SH. MUKESH KUMAR, PLOT NO. 76, BLOCK-B, VIPUL WORLD, SOHNA ROAD, SECTOR-48, GURUGRAM, HARYANA .......... /APPELLANT PAN-AKMPA7619M VS ITO, WARD-1(2), GURGAON . / RESPONDENT !'# / APPELLANT BY : SH. SURAJ BHAN NAIN, ADV !'# / RESPONDENT BY : SH. SANJOG KAPOOR, SR. DR $%!&'( / DATE OF HEARING : 04.12.2019 )* !&'( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: .12.2019 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORD ER OF CIT(A)-1 GURGAON, DATED 22.02.2018 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YE AR 2009-10 ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3)/254 OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). PAGE | 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSION ER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-1, GURGAON IS ERRONEOUS ON FACTS AND IN T HE EYES OF LAW AND THE SAME HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT. 2. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONE R OF -TAX (APPEALS)-1, GURGAON HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND FACT S IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT RS. 29,38,500/- ON ACCOUNT O F CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. 3. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-1, GURGAON HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND FACT S IN NOT ACCEPTING THE GENUINE GIFT OF RS. 30 LAKHS RECEIVED FROM APPELLAN TS FATHER IN LAW NAMED SH. JAILAL. 4. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-1, GURGAON HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND FACT S IN NOT ACCEPTING THE GENUINE GIFT OF RS. 32 LAKHS RECEIVED FROM HER HUSB AND, NAMED SH. MUKESH KUMAR. 3. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINS T THE ADDITION MADE OF RS. 29,38,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN T HE BANK ACCOUNT AND FURTHER IN NOT ACCEPTING THE GIFT OF RS. 30 LACS RE CEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE FROM HER FATHER-IN-LAW AND RS. 32 LACS FROM HER HUS BAND. 4. BRIEFLY IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE AO IN THE FIRST ROUND HAD MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 43,77,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPL AINED SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN ASSESSEES SAVING BANK ACCOUNT. THE CIT (A) IN THE FIRST ROUND HAD UPHELD THE ADDITIONS. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER D ATED 16.12.2015 HAD SET ASIDE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DE N OVO ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN THE SECOND ROUND OF PROCEED INGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT TOT ALING RS. 43,77,000/- PAGE | 3 IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. THE DETAILS OF THE CASH DEPOSI TS ARE MENTIONED UNDER PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IT HAD RECEIVED RS. 30 LACS AS GIFT FROM HER FATHER-IN -LAW ON 4.2.2008 AND THE AMOUNTS WERE DEPOSITED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEA R 2008-09. THE AO NOTED THAT FROM BANK ACCOUNT OF HER FATHER-IN-LAW T HAT THERE WAS NO ENTRY OF CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 30 LACS. FURTHER TH E CASH DEPOSITS WERE SCATTERED OVER A PERIOD OF EIGHT MONTHS. THEREFORE, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE CLA IMED THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED GIFT OF RS. 32 LACS FROM HER HUSBAND SHRI. MUKESH KUMAR IN CASH, WHO HAD WITHDRAWN RS. 37 LACS ON 9.1.2008 AND RS. 15 LACS ON 3.6.2008 FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE AO NOTES THAT S HRI. MUKESH SHARMA, HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ATTENDED THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE HAD NOT MENTIONE D ANYTHING ABOUT GIFT GIVEN TO HIS WIFE. FURTHER THE CASH WITHDRAWAL S WERE SCATTERED OVER A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AND HENCE HE DID NOT ACCEPT TH E EXPLANATION OF GIFT OF RS. 32 LACS. THE NEXT PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE OF HA VING WITHDRAWN CASH FROM HER BANK ACCOUNT ON PRIOR DATES AND RE-DEPOSIT ING THE SAME WAS ALSO NOT ACCEPTED. THE AO THUS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 43,77,000/- WHICH WAS RESTRICTED TO RS. 29,38,500/- BY THE CIT( A), AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 5. THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT BOTH THE HUSBAND AND FATHER-IN-LAW HAD SOLD THEIR AGRICULTURAL LAND AND HAD WITHDRAWN CASH FROM THE RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS WHICH IN TURN WER E ADVANCED TO THE PAGE | 4 ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED IN CASH AND THE SAME WERE DEPOSITED IN CASH, IN THE BANK AC COUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, THOUGH AFTER A GAP. 6. THE LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE PLACING STRONG RE LIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO, POINTED OUT THAT THERE WAS NO REAS ON FOR MAKING THE SAID GIFTS TO THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE NEVER ADMITTED TO HAVING GIVEN THE SAID GIFT DURING THE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 7. ON THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORD AND AFTER HEARING B OTH THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES, THE ISSUE WHICH ARISES IN THE PRES ENT APPEAL IS AGAINST ADDITION OF RS. 43,77,000/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE IS THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED GIFT OF RS. 30 LACS FROM HER FATHER-IN-LAW AND RS. 32 LACS FROM HER HUSBAND AND BALANCE AMOUNT WAS OUT OF HER SAVIN GS. AS FAR AS THE GIFTS ARE CONCERNED, THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSE E POINTED OUT THAT BOTH FATHER-IN-LAW AND THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAD S OLD CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND THE SALE PROCEEDS WERE DEPOS ITED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE BANK ACCOUNT. OUT OF THE SAME, THE AMOUN TS WERE WITHDRAWN BY BOTH THE PERSONS AND GIFTS WERE GIVEN TO THE ASS ESSEE. THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IS OUT OF SUCH CASH GIFTS RECEIVED FROM HER FATHER-IN-LAW AND HER HUSBA ND. THE GIFT WAS BETWEEN FAMILY MEMBERS AND THERE IS NO NECESSITY OF ANY OCCASION FOR THE SAME. THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN PIECEMEAL ON LATER DATES, OUT OF THE GIFTS RECEIVED, BUT THAT IN ITSELF WOULD NOT JUSTIFY IN N OT ACCEPTING THE PLEA OF PAGE | 5 THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, THERE IS NO MERIT IN TH E AFORESAID ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO IS THUS D IRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 29,38,500/-. THE GROUND RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE IS THUS ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019. SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) , , , , /JUDICIAL MEMBER / DATED : 31 ST DECEMBER, 2019. SH #+!&-.#-&/ COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. $0 1 2 / THE CIT(A) 4. $3 $0 / THE PR. CIT 5. 6. -45& 6 6 / DR, ITAT, DELHI 578%/ GUARD FILE. #+$ #+$ #+$ #+$ / BY ORDER , -&& // TRUE COPY // :;,< , 6 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI