JIGNESH V. CHAUHAN, MUMBAI V. ITO 14(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 357/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2304 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILENDRA P YADAV
• Keywords: Gift

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH J, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.357/M/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SHRI JIGNESH V. CHAUHAN, ROOM NO.28, GROUND FLOOR, BHIM SHROFF CHAWL, 139/A BHULESHWAR ROAD, NEAR KALBADEVI ROAD, MUMBAI 400 002 PAN: AGSPC5171E VS. ITO 14(2)(4), 3 RD FLOOR, ROOM NO.305, EARNEST HOUSE, NEAR HOECHEST HOUSE, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400021 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K. GOPAL, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI AKHILENDRA P. YADAV, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 06.08.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.12.2015 O R D E R PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSES SEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.10.2012 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2009-10. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE HAS AGITATED THE CONFI RMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.15,21,000/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AO) HAD RECEIVED INFORMATION THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH OF RS.15,21,000/- IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT. ON BEING ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE ABOVE AMOUNTS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED TO THE AO THAT HE HAD RECEIVED GIFTS OUT OF NATURAL LOVE AND AFFECTION FR OM RELATIVES I.E. FROM ITA NO.357/M/2013 SHRI JIGNESH V. CHAUHAN 2 FATHER, WIFE AND THREE BROTHERS AMOUNTING TO RS.12, 86,000/- AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.2,35,000/- WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF HIS OW N ON CAPITAL/SAVINGS/INCOME OF THE YEAR. THE AO OBSERVE D THAT ALL THE ALLEGED GIFTS WERE IN CASH AND THE DONORS HAD NOT SUFFICIENT CAPA CITY TO GIVE GIFTS TO THE ASSESSEE. HE THEREFORE REJECTED THE EXPLANATION GI VEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF RS.15,21,000/- AS UNEXPLA INED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS SO MADE BY T HE AO. THE ASSESSEE HAS, THUS, COME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVE ALS O GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT ON THE FILE THAT AL L THE GIFTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS CLOSE RELATIVES I.E. FATHER, WIFE AND THREE BROTHERS. THE GIFTS ARE OF SMALL AMOUNT RANGING FROM RS.1.95 LAKH S TO 2.92 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ON FILE THE COPY OF INCOME RE TURNS OF THE DONORS TO SHOW THAT THE DONORS WERE EARNING INCOME AND IT CANNOT B E SAID THAT THEY HAD NO CAPACITY TO GIVE GIFTS OF THE ABOVE STATED AMOUNTS. THE DONORS HAVE CONFIRMED THAT THEY HAVE GIFTED THE ABOVE STATED AMOUNTS TO T HE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS NOT CALLED UPON THE DONORS TO ASK FOR THEIR SOURCE OF I NCOME. HE HAS MERELY PRESUMED THAT THE DONORS HAVE NOT SUFFICIENT CAPACI TY TO GIVE THE GIFTS TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THIS FACT ALSO CANNOT BE IGNORE D THAT THE GIFTS ARE OF THE SMALL AMOUNT RANGING FROM RS.1.95 LAKHS TO 2.92 LAK HS. THE DONORS ARE ASSESSABLE TO INCOME TAX. THEY HAVE FILED THE CONF IRMATIONS REGARDING GIVING THE GIFTS TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AMOUNT OF RS.2.35 T HOUSAND WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AS OUT OF HIS OWN CAPITAL/SAVINGS AND INC OME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS ALSO NOMINAL. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMST ANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION ON THE PART OF LOWER AUTHORITIES IN D ISBELIEVING THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT EXAMINING AND ENQ UIRING OR CALLING UPON THE ITA NO.357/M/2013 SHRI JIGNESH V. CHAUHAN 3 DONORS. THE ADDITIONS THEREFORE MADE IN THIS OF TH E ASSESSEE ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AND THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY ORD ERED TO BE DELETED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS HER EBY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.12.2015. SD/- SD/- (G.S. PANNU) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 04.12.2015. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORD ER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.