V.G.Manjunath , Bangalore V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 350/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4590 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 16-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B R RAMESH J
• Assessee Lawyers: N NAGARAJU
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 143(3); 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, B ENGALURU BEFORE S HRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I TA NO. 3 50 / BANG/2 0 1 7 (ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2012 - 13 ) SHRI V.G.MANJUNATH, NO.11/21, 15 TH MAIN, 66 TH C ROSS, 5 TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560010. PAN:AKMPM 18366 VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX APPELLANT CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BENGALURU. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI N.NAGARAJU, CA. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.R.RAMESH, JCIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 06/06/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 /06/2018 O R D E R PER I NTURI RAMA RAO, AM : T HIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS ) - 2, [CIT(A)], BANGALORE , DATED 02 / 11 / 2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13. 2. TH E ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING G ROUNDS OF APPEAL : ITA NO. 3 50 /BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 4 3. B RIEFLY THE FACTS THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL . T HE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 WAS FILED ON 30 / 09 / 2012 D ECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 40 , 30 , 690 / - . A GAIN ST THE S AID RETURN OF INCOME , THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE AO (AO) VIDE ORDER DATED 26 / 02 / 2015 U /S 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 [ THE ACT ] AT TOTAL INCOME OF RS, 91 , 80 , 690 / - . T HE DISPARITY BETWEEN THE INCOME RETURNED AND THE ASSESSED INCOME IS ON ACCOUNT OF MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 51 , 50 , 000 / - U/S 68 DIS BELIEVING THE GIFTS REC EIVED IN CASH STATED TO BE FROM RELATIVES . 4. THE FACTS LEADING TO THE ABOVE ADD ITION ARE SET OUT BY THE AO IN PARA . 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER . F ROM THE PERUSAL OF PARA 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED GIFTS IN CASH FROM THE FOLLOWING PERSONS STATED TO BE RELATED TO HIM : ITA NO. 3 50 /BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 4 I N AN ATTEMPT TO ASCERTAIN THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFTS STATED TO H AVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE ABOVE PERSONS , THE AO ISSUED SUMMONS TO THOSE PERSONS WHO HAD FROM PROMPTLY RESPONDED TO SAME AND CONFIRM ED THE FACT UM OF HAVING MADE GIFTS TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO ALSO RECORDED STATEMENT S FROM THOSE PARTIES . T HE AO, HOWEVER , DIS BELIEVED THE GIFTS RECEIVED O N ACCOUNT OF FACT THAT SOURCE OF INCOME OF DONORS WAS STATED TO BE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND DOES NOT POSSESS THE PAN NO. NO R FILED RETURN OF INCOME AND ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE TO OFFER EXPLANATION THE AO DREW INFERENCE THAT TRANSA CTION OF GIFTS IS NOT GENUINE AND IS ADOPTED AS A DEVICE TO BRING HIS OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY INTO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT . A CCORDINGLY THE AO BROUGHT TO TAX . 5. BEING AGGRIEVED , AN APPEAL WAS P REFERRED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER CONFI RMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. 6. B EING AGGRIEVED , THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE U S IN THE PRESENT IN APPEAL. IT IS C ONTENTED THAT THE AO MERELY DISBELIEVED THE GIFTS ON S URMISES AND CONJECTURES . T HE FACTUM OF HAVING MADE GIFTS TO THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFIRMED B Y THE DONORS BEFORE THE AO, WHO HAD RECORDED STATEMENT ON OATH B Y ISSUING SUMMONS U/S 131 . HE F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT GIFTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM CLOSE RELATIVES . F OR THE PURPOSE OF ITA NO. 3 50 /BANG/2017 PAGE 4 OF 4 MAKING GIFTS , NO OCCASION IS REQUIRED . HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE RE CEIPT OF GIFTS IN CASH IS NOT ILLEGAL. O N THE OTHER HAND , THE LE ARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE PLACED R ELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES . 7. W E H EARD RIVAL SUBMISSION S AND PERUSED MATERIAL ON RECORD . T HE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN TH E PRESENT A PPEALS IS REGARDING GENUINENESS OF THE VALUE OF GIFT S RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE RELATIVES . NO DOUBT THE FACTUM OF GIFTS HAVING BEEN MADE WAS CONFIRMED BY THE DONORS BE FOR E AO IN RESPONSE TO S UMMONS ISSUED U /S 131 . HOWEVER, HAVING REGAR D TO THE CUMULATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THAT MOST OF THE DONORS ARE FROM AGRICULTURAL BACKGROUND OR AGRICULTURISTS AND AVAILABILITY OF CASH ON THE DATE OF OCCASION WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED . I N OUR CONSIDERED OPINION , THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD.CIT(A) WERE RIGHT IN DOUBTING THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION . N OT MUCH CREDENCE CAN BE GIVEN TO THE STATEMENTS MADE BEFORE THE AO AS THE DONORS ARE CLOSELY RELATED TO THE APPELLANT AND IT MAY BE COLLUSIVE EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO SAVE ASSESSEE. T HEREFORE WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). A CCORDINGLY THE A PPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH JUNE, 2018 SD/ - SD/ - (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE : BENGALURU. D A T E D : 15 / 06 /201 8 SRINIVASULU, SPS COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A) 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY I NCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE