SHRIRAM DADAJI MATTE, Nagpur V. A.C.I.T CIR.-1, Nagpur

ITA 465/NAG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3549 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 9 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift; Principle of natural justice; Reason to believe; Set aside
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.465/Nag./2016 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) Shriram Dadaji Matte Plot no.7, Gazetted Officers Colony West High Court Road, Nagpur 400 001 PAN – AAUMPM9106H ................ Appellant v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle–1, Nagpur ................ Respondent Assessee by : Shri R.K. Ganeriwal Revenue by : Smt. Agnes P. Thomas Date of Hearing – 26.04.2022 Date of Order – 28/04/2022 O R D E R PER ARUN KHODPIA, A.M. The aforesaid appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 8 th June 2016, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–I, Nagpur, for the assessment year 2009–10. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee is, whether or not the learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer on the addition made on account of gift received from Shri Dawar, at ` 3,00,000. Shriram Dadaji Matte 2 3. Brief facts are, in the present case, the assessee is an individual. During the year under consideration, the assessee was engaged in the business of works contract mainly engaged in demolition job work in the name and style as “M/s. Matte Associates”. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee filed his return of income showing gross total income at ` 70,67,090. The case was re–opened under section 147 of the Act and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued for the reason to believe that purchases worth ` 1,75,275 was considered to be hawala purchases as per the information gathered from the Sales Tax Department. The Assessing Officer presumed that the purchases from M/s. Mahavir Enterprises and M/s. Harsh Corporation as bogus and he disallowed ` 28,885 on account of purchase made from the M/s. Mahavir Enterprises and purchases worth ` 1,46,390, from Harsh Corporation, aggregating to ` 1,75,275. The Assessing Officer has also made addition of ` 3,00,000, on account of give received and credited to capital account. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish the relevant documents and relation with the donar. In response, the assessee filed relevant documents and submitted that Dr. Daware, the donar is the brother– in–law of the assessee from whom the gift of ` 3,00,000 was received by the assessee. The Assessing Officer did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and added ` 3,00,000 to the income of the assessee. The assessee being aggrieved by the addition of ` Shriram Dadaji Matte 3 3,00,000, made by the Assessing Officer, carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority. 4. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:– “The appellant has submitted the confirmation of gift from Dr. Narayanrao Daware, who is a doctor having PAN ABOPD3992K. The donor is brother in law of the appellant and the gift is stated to have been given by account payee cheque. It however, is perused from records that the appellant has not adduced any evidence in support of his claim either before the A.O. or during the appellant proceedings, coupled with the fact that the submissions of confirmation alone without any corroborative evidence is an additional evidence furnished during the appellate proceedings, hence is not admissible. It therefore, decline to interfere with the decision of the A.O. on the issue of gift, hence the addition made of ` 3 lacs by the A.O. on account of unexplained gift is confirmed.” Being aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that the gift was disallowed by the Assessing Officer only on the ground that the same was not replied at the time of assessment and document submitted at the time of appeal is additional documents which canoe be accepted. He submitted that the Assessing Officer has not considered that the gift was not the part of reason to believe and nono submission of documents at the time of assessment is just an Shriram Dadaji Matte 4 omission against which the assessee cannot be denied for justice. He also submitted that the learned CIT(A) has also power fo Assessing Officer for correcting the omission and denial of acceptance of document is incorrect for natural justice. 6. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the order of the authorities below. 7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material placed on record. We find that the relationship between the donor and the assessee has not been doubted by the authorities below. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that the ` 3,00,000 has been received by the assessee as a gift and relevant documents in the form of evidences have been submitted before both the Revenue authorities. No contrary evidence or any document proving otherwise have been filed the learned Departmental Representative to take a view confirming the orders of the authorities below. In the absence of any contrary or corroborative evidence filed by the Revenue, we find no reason to uphold the order of the learned CIT(A). Consequently, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) and allow the grounds raised by the assessee. Shriram Dadaji Matte 5 8. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28/04/2022 Sd/- SANDEEP GOSAIN JUDICIAL MEMBER Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 28/04/2022 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The CIT(A); (4) The CIT, Nagpur City concerned; (5) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; (6) Guard file. True Copy By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai