ITO, Hisar V. Sh Parmod Kumar, Hisar

ITA 4323/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 432320114 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 11-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.4323/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, WARD-3, HISAR. VS. 1642, URBAN ESTATE-II, HISAR. PAN : AATPK3570E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJESH KUMA R, SR. DR. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K. SAMPATH, A DVOCATE. DATE OF HEARING : 11-12-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14-12-2012 O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATE D 2 ND JULY, 2010 PASSED BY THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, RO HTAK. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IS THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS.12 LAKHS (RS.3, LAKHS, RS.3 LAKHS, RS.2 LAKHS, RS.2 LAKHS AND RS.2 LAKHS) BY HOLDING THAT THE CLAIMED GIFTS WERE GENUINE. ITA NO.4323/DEL/2010 2 2. DURING HEARING THE LEARNED SR. DR SHRI RAJESH KU MAR DEFENDED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY ADVANCING THE ARGUMENT WHICH IS IDENTICAL TO THE GROUND RAISED BY FURTHER SUBMITTING THAT THE SOURCE OF THE GIFTED AMOUNT WAS NOT ESTABLISHED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI K. SAMPATH STRONGLY DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY SUB MITTING THAT THE IDENTITY, SOURCE AND ITS GENUINENESS WAS DULY ESTAB LISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION WAS ARGUED TO BE RIGHTLY DE LETED. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE DECLARED INCOME OF RS.1,24,520/- IN ITS RETURN FILED ON 31.10.2006 WHICH WAS PROCESSED AS SUCH UNDER SEC. 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). THE ASSESSEE CREDITED THE AMOUNT OF RS.12 LAKHS AS GIFTS FROM VA RIOUS PERSONS AS HAS BEEN DETAILED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE EVIDENCE FOR THE CLAIMED GIFTS AND ALSO TO PRODUCE THE DONORS FOR EXAMINATION. THE STATEMENT OF SHRI BALRAJ WAS RECO RDED ON OATH ON 7.04.2008 IN WHICH HE ADMITTED TO HAVE MADE THE GIF T OF RS.3 LAKH TO THE ASSESSEE. SHRI BALRAJ TENDERED THAT THE ASSESSEE I S THE SON OF HIS SISTER. ULTIMATELY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNTS ARE THE OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFO RE, HE MADE THE ADDITION. ITA NO.4323/DEL/2010 3 4. ON APPEAL THE LEARNED CIT(A) EXAMINED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITION. THE AGGRIEVED REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. IF THE TOTALITY OF FACTS NARRATED BEFOR E US, THE ASSERTION MADE BY THE LEARNED RESPECTIVE COUNSELS ARE ANALYZED AND TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD WE FIND THAT UNCONTROVERTEDLY THE IDENTITY O F THE DONORS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE AS THE DONORS ARE CLOSE RELATIVES OF THE AS SESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS QUESTIONED/DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF G IFTS. IN THE STATEMENT TENDERED BEFORE THE AO, SHRI BALRAJ, MATERNAL UNCLE OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS CATEGORICALLY EXPLAINED THAT THE DONEE IS THE SON O F HIS SISTER AND EXPLAINED THE SOURCES OF THE GIFTED AMOUNT. THE AMOUNT OF RS .6 LAKHS WAS DEPOSITED FROM THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S. OM INDUSTRIES. I N SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM THE COPY OF THE CASH BOOK OF THE FIRM M/S. OM INDUSTRIE S WAS ALSO FURNISHED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS PER WHICH RS.11,00,684 /- WAS AVAILABLE AS CASH, OUT OF WHICH, RS.6 LAKHS WERE GIVEN. EVEN TH E AO HAS NOT QUESTIONED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. WE FURTHER FIN D THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED THE SOURCES OF THE GIFTED AMOUNTS AND THE TRANSFERRED AMOUNT ARE FROM THE KNOWN SOURCES. THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN ISSUED THROUGH DEMAND DRAFTS. THE GIFTED AMOUNTS WERE ALSO CLAIMED TO BE GIVEN TO FULFILL THE WISH OF THE FATHER OF THE DONOR. FROM THE RECORD WE FIN D THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DULY EXAMINED EACH AND EVERY ENTRY OF THE GIFTE D AMOUNT, THEREFORE, WE ITA NO.4323/DEL/2010 4 FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE CONCLUS ION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. EVEN OTHERWISE, NO EVIDENTIARY DOCUMENT HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR CLAIM. CONSEQ UENTLY, THE STAND OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS AFFIRMED. 5. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS HAVING NO MERIT, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 6. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH DECEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- ( B.C. MEENA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 14 TH DECEMBER, 2012. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER *MG DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT.