Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur V. Shri Amar Nath Gupta, Kanpur

ITA 427/LKW/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 42723714 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK MISHRA
• Keywords: Gift

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.427/LKW/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:1999 - 2000 A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, KANPUR. VS. SHRI AMAR NATH GUPTA, 123/1 - F, KALPI ROAD, KANPUR. PAN:AAUPG4232E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI VIVEK MISHRA, CIT, D.R. RESPONDENT BY NONE DATE OF HEARING 14/07/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 2 /08/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT (A) - I, KANPUR DATED 19/03/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 2000. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED GIFT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSES HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO FURNISH NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, INSPITE OF THE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,65,000/ - MADE BEING 2 UNPROVED CASH CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN SHOWN FROM M7S PETRO CHEMICAL S & CHEMICALS, IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS DURING THE COURSE - OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 3. THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,81,000/ - MADE BEING UNPR OVED CASH CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN SHOWN FROM M/S TANKERS INDIA, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 4. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. C I T (A) DESERVES TO BE VACATED AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. BE RESTORE D . 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL AS STATED ABOVE AS AND WHEN NEED FOR DOING SO MAY ARISE. 3. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVE NUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF LUCKNOW BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KRISHNA MOHAN AGARWAL VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER IN I.T.A. NO.811/LKW/05 AND IN THE CASE OF DY. CIT VS. SHRI ALOK GAUTAM IN I.T.A. NO.1 506/ALL/97 DATED 23/01/2009. HE SUBMITTED COPIES OF THESE TRIBUNAL DECISIONS. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE REGARDING GROUND NO. 1 HAS BEEN DECIDED BY LEARNED CIT(A) AS PER PARA 3 4.2 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: THE LD. AR HAS ORALLY EXPLAINED THAT HE HAD FILED COPIES OF TWO GIFT DEEDS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS. ON PERUSAL OF THE CASE RECORD, I FIND THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE CORRECT. I ALSO FIND THAT THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE DONOR IS AVAILABLE ON THE GIFT DEEDS ITSELF. THE AMOUNT HAS COME THROUGH THE BANKING CHANNELS, INSPITE OF HAVING THE ADDRESS OF THE DONOR, THE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY FURTHER ENQUIRY. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES. AS PER ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 10.08.2007, THE AO HAD ASKED THE AR TO GIVE THE DETAILS OF GIFTS TAKEN AND ADDRESS OF DONOR......' THE APPE LLANT HAD SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THE GIFT DEEDS DULY NOTARIZED BY A NOTARY. THESE GIFT DEEDS GIVE THE COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE DONOR. THUS THERE WAS NOTHING MORE TO PROVE ON PART OF THE APPELLANT. THERE WAS NO QUERY WITH RESPECT TO THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR. VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 20.08.2007, THE AO HAD ASKED THE LD, AR 'TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF LOAN FROM M/S TANKERS INDIA'. THIS QUERY WAS NOT WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPUGNED GIFT AMOUNT OR THE DONOR. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE AO CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AS THE A.O. HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL WHICH COULD PROVE THAT SUCH GIFTS ARE BOGUS. ADDITION MADE BV A O IS HEREBY DELETED. 5.1 FROM THE ABOVE PARA FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH DETAILS OF GIFTS TAKEN AND ADDRESS OF THE DONORS. HE HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED GIFT DEEDS DULY N OTARIZED BY THE NOTARY AND COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE DONORS. HE HAS GIVEN A CLEAR FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO QUERY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONORS. REGARDING ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 20/08/2007, IT IS NOTED BY HIM THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LOAN FROM M/S TANKERS INDIA AND IN THIS QUERY , THERE WAS NO REFERENCE TO THE DONOR OR THE GIFT AMOUNT. UNDER THESE FACTS, IT WAS HELD BY CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY 4 COMPLIED WITH ALL THE QUERIES OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN ALL THE INFORMATION WHICH WAS ASKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING THESE GIFTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) O N THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS REJECTED. REGARDING TWO TRIBUNAL DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE, WE FIND THAT IN BOTH THESE CASES, T WAS NOTED BY THE A.O. THAT CERTAIN INFORMATION WERE EITHER NOT PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE AND/OR DEFECTS WERE NOTICED BY THE A.O. IN THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE FIRST OBJECTION OF THE A.O. ON PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS THIS THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVIDE THE COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES BUT JUST ABOVE THIS OBSERVATION, THE A.O. HAS NOTED THE ADDRESSES OF THE DONORS ALTHOUGH IN THE HEADING, HE HAS STATED NAME OF THE DONOR. SECOND OBJECTION OF THE A.O. ON THE SAME PAGE IS THIS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PROVE THE CREDI TWORTHINESS OF THE DONORS BUT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GIVE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF DONORS. IN THIS REGARD, A CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) THAT THERE WAS NO QUERY WITH RESPECT TO THE CREDITWORTHINESS O F THE DONOR. THIS FINDING OF LEARNED CIT (A) COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE. UNDER THESE FACTS, THESE TRIBUNAL DECISIONS CITED BY THE LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 6. REGARDING GROUND NO. 2 & 3 IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 7.65 LACS FROM M/S PETRO CHEMICAL & CHEMICAL AND RS.1.81 LAC FROM M/S TANKERS INDIA , W E FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY CIT(A) IN PARA 5 & 5.2 OF HIS ORDER THAT IN THE REMAND REPORT , IT IS STATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE IS HARDLY ANY SCOPE FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNPROVED CASH CREDIT IN RESPECT OF BOTH THESE CASH CREDITS BECAUSE AS PER THE SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT, THE AUDITOR HAS MENTIONED THAT THEY HAVE CHECKED THE LOAN 5 ACCOUNT AND FOUND THAT THESE WERE ROUTED THROUGH BANK ACCOUNT. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS THAT IN THE REMAND REPORT , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS REPORTED THAT THERE IS HARDLY ANY SCOPE FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNPROVED CASH C REDIT, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 2 & 3 ARE ALSO REJECTED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CA PTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 2 /08/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR