Shri Ghayshayambhai Mathubhai Moradiya, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-8(3), Surat

ITA 3940/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6372 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV
• Keywords: Gift

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND A. N. PAHUJA, AM) ITA NO.3940/AHD/2008 A. Y.: 2004-05 GHANSHYAMBHAI NATHUBHAI MORADIYA, 84, GURUNAGAR SOCIETY, VARACHHA ROAD, SURAT VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 8 (3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT PA NO. ABEPM 9632 M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI B. L. YADAV, DR O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)- V , SURAT DATED 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-V, HAS WRONGLY CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS.7,17,000/- MADE BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(3), SURAT, ON ACCOUNT OF GIFT RECEIVED DURIN G THE YEAR. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS)-V, SURAT IS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVE TO BE DELETED IN FULL. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)- V, HAS WRONGLY CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS.30,,000/- MADE BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(3), SURAT, ON ACCOUNT OFFICE AND FACTORY RENT PAI D. ITA NO.3940/AHD/2008 GHANSHYAMBHAI NATHUBHAI MORADIYA VS ITO, WARD 8(3), SURAT 2 THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ITO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A)-V, SURAT IS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVE TO BE DELETED IN FULL. 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL)-V, SURAT, HAS WRON GLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SURAT, OF RS.2,900/- OUT OF MOTOR CAR EXPENSES AND RS.2,558/- OUT OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES. THESE ADDITIONS ARE BAD IN LAW AND DESERVE TO BE DELETED IN FULL. 2. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS EARLIER DISMISSED IN DEFAULT VIDE ORDER DATED 19-02-2009 BECAUSE NO SPECIFIC GRO UND WAS GIVEN FOR SEEKING ADJOURNMENT. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED MIS C. APPLICATION NO.322/AHD/2009 PLEADING FOR RECALLING THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL ACCEPTED THE REASONS FOR NON -APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING AND RECALLED THE EARLIER ORDER VIDE ORDER DATED 18-02-2009 AND DIRECTED THE REGISTRY TO RE-FIX THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING AND ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 14-06-2011. HOWEVER, NO NE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ON THE DATE OF HEAR ING. THE APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, DECIDED IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESS EE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR AND PERUSED THE FIN DINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. ON GROUNDS NO.1 OF THE APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CHAL LENGED THE ADDITION OF RS. 7,17,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF GIFTS RECE IVED FROM 3 PARTIES. IT WAS NOTED BY CIT(A) THAT THERE WERE DISCREPANCY IN HE AFFIDAVITS OF THE DONORS. ALL THE THREE DONORS WERE DIRECTED TO B E PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. ONE OF THE DONORS, SHRI PREMJI SINHORA APPE ARED BEFORE THE ITA NO.3940/AHD/2008 GHANSHYAMBHAI NATHUBHAI MORADIYA VS ITO, WARD 8(3), SURAT 3 AO (ACCORDING TO AO JADAVBHAI MAVJIBHAI MORADIYA) A ND EXPLAINED THAT GIFT WAS MEANT FOR HIS SON-IN-LAW WHO IS INCID ENTALLY A BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SOURCE OF THE GIFT WAS NOT PROVED . ALL THE GIFTS WERE IN CASH. THE OTHER TWO DONORS COULD NOT ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO. THE AO, THEREFORE, NOTED THAT THE GI FTS ARE NOT GENUINE AND JUST MAKE-BELIEF ARRANGEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH CREDITWORTHINESS OF TH E DONORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE MATTER. BY A PPLYING THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES, ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED. AS REG ARDS GROUND NO.2, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED RS.30,000/- AS LESSER OF FICE RENT AND RS.12,000/- AS RENT FOR FACTORY LAND. STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED IN WHICH HE STATED THAT HE HAS PAID RENT O F RS.1,000/- PER MONTH WHEREAS IN THE RETURN HE HAS CLAIMED RS.42,00 0/-. THE AO, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED RS.30,000/- AS BOGUS EXPENSES . THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD CON FIRMED THE ADDITION. ON GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL, ADDITION WA S CONFIRMED BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY DETAILS OF T HE EXPENSES. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE NOTED BY THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE THOUGH SUBMITTED WR ITTEN SUBMISSION BUT NO EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL IS FILED ON RECORD TO S UBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THE ABSENCE O F ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATIO N TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE AT TH E EARLIER STAGE ALSO DID NOT REPRESENT THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL AND AGAIN FAILED TO APPEAR AND ALSO FAILED TO FILE ANY DETAIL S IN SUPPORT OF THE ITA NO.3940/AHD/2008 GHANSHYAMBHAI NATHUBHAI MORADIYA VS ITO, WARD 8(3), SURAT 4 GROUNDS OF APPEAL. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON ALL THE GROUNDS. THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17-06-2011 SD/- SD/- (A. N. PAHUJA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 17-06-2011 LAKSHMIKANT/ LAKSHMIKANT/ LAKSHMIKANT/ LAKSHMIKANT/- -- - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD