GURUPREET SINGH GROVER, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 490/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5326 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY MALIK CIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: K L MOOLCHANDAN I
• Keywords: Gift; Rectification of order; Additional evidence
• Section: 69; 144; 154

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH YFYR DQEKJ] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM AND SHRI LALIE T KUMAR, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 490/JP/15 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI GURPREET SINGH GROVER, C/O K.L. MOOLCHANDANI, AR, 16-KA-4, SAHKAR MARG, JYOTI NAGAR, JAIPUR CUKE VS. ITO, WARD 2(3), JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. ADZPG 8708 K VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.L. MOOLCHANDANI (ADV.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : S HRI AJAY MALIK (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 15.03.2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 /03/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR DATED 02.03.2015 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS TA KEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: (1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY ERRED IN DISMISSING THE GROUN D REGARDING VALIDITY OF THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED U/S 144 OF THE ACT WITHOUT AD JUDICATING THE POINT AT ISSUE AFTER THRASHING OUT THE CONTENTIONS MADE BY T HE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD. AS NONE OF THE NOTICES AS ISSUED BY THE DE PARTMENT COULD BE SERVED UPON THE APPELLANT, PARTICULARLY THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT TO PICK UP THIS CASE FOR SCRUTINY WAS NEVER SERVED UPO N THE APPELLANT, RENDERING THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VOID-AB-INITIO. THIS POINT HAS NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED. (2) (I)ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION OF RS. 3,92,875/- OUT ITA NO. 490/KJP/15 SHRI GURPREET SINGH GROVER VS. ITO, WARD 2(3), JAIP UR 2 OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 17,68,000/- MADE BY THE A O ON ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGED CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WIT HOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. (2)(II) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY ERRED IN IGNORING THE CONTENT S OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF SMT. SATISH GROVER ON FLIMSY GROUNDS WITHOUT ASSIGNING A NY COGENT REASON. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED SALE PROCEEDS OF RS. 14 ,47,500/- (BEING SHARE OF TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 57,90,000/-) TOWARD S SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY HIM JOINTLY WITH HIS MO THER SMT. SATISH GROVER AND TWO OTHER BROTHERS. THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 57,90,000/- WAS RECEIVED IN CASH BY ALL THE FOUR JOINT OWNERS, INCL UDING THE MOTHER OF THE APPELLANT SMT. SATISH GROVER. OUT OF SUCH CASH SAL E PROCEEDS, THE APPELLANT CLAIMS THAT HE HAD DEPOSITED HIS OWN SHARE OF CASH RS. 14,47,500/- PLUS RS.2,93,500/- OUT OF THE CASH SALES PROCEEDS BELONG ING TO HIS MOTHER SMT. SATISH GROVER AND BALANCE TWO DEPOSITS OF RS. 12,00 0/- AND RS. 15,000/- SHOWN ON 5.11.2008 & 13.3.2009 WERE MADE BY THE APPELLANT OUT OF HIS PAST WITHDRAWALS OF RS. 60,000/- AND REFUND OF EMI RESPE CTIVELY. AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT, APPELLANT DIDNT RESPOND TO NOTICES ISS UED BY AO AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS THEREFORE PASSED U/S 144 OF TH E ACT MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS 17,65,760 U/S 69 OF THE ACT BASED ON THE AIR INFORMATION THAT APPELLANT HAD DEPOSITED CASH TO THE TUNE OF RS 17,65,760 IN H IS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH ICICI BANK. 2.1 BEING AGGRIEVED, THE APPELLANT CARRIED THE MATT ER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) AND THE DOCUMENTARY DETAILS AND EVIDENCES WI TH REGARD TO THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND BY THE APPELLANT AND HIS MOTHER AND TWO BROTHERS WERE SUBMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UND ER RULE 46A OF IT RULES, ITA NO. 490/KJP/15 SHRI GURPREET SINGH GROVER VS. ITO, WARD 2(3), JAIP UR 3 1962. HAVING CONSIDERED SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SUBMITTED UNDER RULE 46A OF IT RULES, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMATION THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 (AS GROUND WAS NOT PRESSED) AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 14,47,500/- (AFTER RECTIFICATION ORDER PASSED U/S 154 OF THE ACT) TO T HE EXTENT OF THE SHARE OF THE SALE PROCEEDS BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT. THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,20,500/- WAS HOWEVER CONFIR MED. 2.2 THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A)S ORDER IS NOT A WELL REASONED ORDER AND IS BAD IN LAW AND IS ASSAILED ON THE FOLL OWING COUNTS: (I) WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,93,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE FUNDS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM HIS MOTHER SMT. SATISH GROVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT DISPUTE THE Q UESTION THE EXISTENCE AND CORRECTNESS OF THE DECLARATION OF GIFTS OF SMT. SATISH GROVER. AS SUCH THE CONTENTS OF THE SAID DECLARATION OF GIFTS OF SMT. SATISH GROVER REMAINED INCONTROVERTIBLE. (II) IT IS A MATTER OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT IN H INDU FAMILY AND SOCIETY, NORMALLY, MOTHERS DO NOT HESITATE IN PARTING WITH THEIR FUNDS AND GIVE AWAY THE FUNDS WILLINGLY TO THEIR KIDS AS FINANCI AL HELP OUT OF THEIR LOVE AND AFFECTION. THE MOTHER OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT A N EXCEPTION TO SUCH NORMAL TENDENCY PREVALENT IN HINDU FAMILY AND SOCIE TY. (III) THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT SMT. S ATISH GROVER HAD TRANSFERRED RS. 2,00,000/- TO THE APPELLANTS ACCOUNT SO GIVIN G AWAY THE ABOVE CASH FUNDS OF RS. 2,93,000/- TO THE APPELLANT IS NOTHING BUT AN AFTER THOUGHT. OBVIOUSLY SUCH FINDINGS ARE LOP-SIDED AND BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. THERE APPEARS NO LOGIC TO TURN DOWN THE CONTENTS OF DECLARATION OF GIFTS ON THE PLEA THAT SHE HAD TRANS FERRED 2,00,000/- TO THE ACCOUNT OF APPELLANT SO SHE CANNOT GIVE FURTHER FUNDS TO HER SON. OBVIOUSLY SUCH FINDINGS ARE ILLOGICAL AND DEVOID OF MERITS. (IV) AS PER EVIDENCE ACT, THE CONTENTS OF THE DECLA RATION OF GIFTS CANNOT BE IGNORED AND RUBBISHED WITHOUT REBUTTING THE SAME. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE CONTENTS OF THE DECLARATION OF GIFTS OF SMT. SA TISH GROVER HAVE NOT BEEN REBUTTED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CONTENTS OF SUCH DECLARATION OF GIFTS CANNOT BE NEGATED SUMMARILY. (V) LASTLY NOTHING HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT THE DEPOSITS OF RS. 12,000/- AND RS.15,000/- SHOWN ON 5.11.2008 & 13.3.2009 RESPECTI VELY. IN ABSENCE OF ITA NO. 490/KJP/15 SHRI GURPREET SINGH GROVER VS. ITO, WARD 2(3), JAIP UR 4 ANY SPECIFIC AND CATEGORICAL FINDINGS, CONFIRMING OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH DEPOSITS IS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVED TO BE D ELETED SUMMARILY. 2.3 THE RELEVANT FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) I S AS UNDER: IN GROUND NO.2 & 3, AS ISSUES ARE INTER-RELATED, H ENCE BOTH GROUND OF APPEAL CLUBBED TOGETHER, GROUND NO.2 CHALLENGES THE ASSES SMENT COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE ACT AT RS.31,24,186/- WHEREAS GROUND NO.3 C HALLENGES THE ADDITION OF RS. 17,65,760/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE SHRI GURUPREET SINGH GROVER ALONGWITH HIS MOTHER SMT. SATISH GROVE R AND BROTHERS SHRI KANWARJEET SINGH AND SHRI HARPREET SINGH SOLD AGRIC ULTURAL LAND (LOCATED BEYOND 8 KM FROM MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF BHATINDA MUNIC IPALITY ) FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 57,90,000/- AND ALSO PAID STAM P DUTY FOR REGISTRATION OF RS. 2,89,000/- ACCORDINGLY ASSESSEES SHARE (1/4 TH ) COMES TO RS.14,70,000/- (SALE CONSIDERATION) AND STAMP DUTY PAID FOR SALE DEED R EGISTRATION RS. 72,375/-. FURTHER, ON PERUSAL COPY OF BANK STATEMENT IT IS SE EN AS UNDER: SL.NO. DATE AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT REMARKS 1. 5.4.2008 RS. 14,70,000/- BY CASH 2. 6.5.2008 RS. 35,000/- BY CASH 3. 2.6.2008 RS. 49,000/- BY CASH 4. 15.7.2008 RS. 49,000/- BY CASH 5. 5.11.2008 RS. 12,000/- BY CASH 6. 19.12.2008 RS. 49,000/- BY CASH 7. 20.12.2008 RS. 49,000/- BY CASH 8. 22.12.2008 RS. 40,000/- BY CASH 9. 13.3.2009 RS. 15,000/- BY CASH TOTAL RS. 17,68,000/- BY CASH APART FROM THIS, IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO MENTION TR ANSFER TRANSACTION OF RS.2,00,000/- DATED 5.09.2008 FROM SMT. SATISH GROV ER TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT HIS MOTHER SM T.SATISH GROVER HAD PROVIDED CASH GIFTS (EXCEPT FOR RS.12000/-) ON DIF FERENT OCCASIONS CANNOT ACCEPTED. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS IT CAN BE SA FELY CONDUCTED AS UNDER: A) ON THE DATE 05.04.2008 AMOUNT OF RS. 14,47,500/- (- ) 72,375/- (BEING 1/4 TH SHARE OF SALE CONSIDERATION RS. 57,90,000/- AND RE GISTRATION STAMP DUTY OF 2,89,000/-) RS. 13,75,125/- WAS THE S URPLUS AMOUNT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, BALANCE AMO UNT OF RS. ITA NO. 490/KJP/15 SHRI GURPREET SINGH GROVER VS. ITO, WARD 2(3), JAIP UR 5 94,875/- (RS.14,70,000/- - 13,75,125/-) BEING THE C ASH DEPOSIT IN BANK A/C REMAINS UNVERIFIABLE. B) REGARDING RS. 35,000/-. RS. 49,000/-, RS. 49,000/-. RS. 49,000/-, RS. 49,000/-, RS. 40,000/- & RS. 15,000/- ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED CASH GIFTS FROM HIS MOTHER. BUT THIS IS N OTHING BUT AN AFTER THOUGHT AS ON 5.09.2008 HIS MOTHER SMT. SATISH GROV ER HAD TRANSFERRED RS. 2,00,000/- TO HIS ACCOUNT (REF. ICI CI BANK STATEMENTS). IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, ASSESSEE GET A RELIEF OF RS . 143,75,125/- ONLY AND BALANCE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,92,875/- (17,6 8,000-13,75,125) IS HEREBY SUSTAINED. 2.4 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. REGARDING FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE EXPARTE ORDER PASSED U/S 144 OF THE ACT, IT IS NOTED FROM THE CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 02.03.2015 THAT THIS GROUND WA S NOT PRESSED HENCE IT WAS DISMISSED BY HIM. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS GIVEN TO UNDERSTAND THAT ON MERITS AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVID ENCES, THE ADDITIONS MADE WOULD NOT STAND THE TEST OF APPEAL SO IT WOULD BE I RRELEVANT TO OBJECT TO THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 144 OF THE IT ACT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL WAS NOT PRESSE D BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). SINCE THE PART OF THE ADDITION STAND CONFIRMED IN T HE APPEAL SO THIS GROUND THOUGH NOT PRESSED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IS ACCORDI NGLY RETREAT. ON PERUSAL OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER, WE COULD NOT FIND ANY DISCUSSION REGARDING THE SO CALLED CONCESSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT BY NOT P RESSING THIS GROUND CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS. THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) IS CLEAR THAT THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAD RAISED THIS GROUND, HOWEVER THE SAME WAS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ACCORDINGLY, WHERE T HE GROUND IS NOT PRESSED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WE FIND IT DIFFICULT TO UNDE RSTAND HOW THE SAME CAN BE RAISED BEFORE US AND HOW WE CAN ADJUDICATE THE SAME . HENCE, THIS GROUND NO. 1 IS DISMISSED. 2.5 AS FAR AS THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,92,875/- MADE B Y THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELL ANT, THE LD. AR AT THE OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 3,92,8 75/- STAND CORRECTED TO RS. 3,20,500/- AS PER THE CIT(A)S ORDER U/S 154/250 OF THE IT ACT. OUT OF THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 3,20,500/-, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2,93,000 /- IS ON ACCOUNT OF GIFT ITA NO. 490/KJP/15 SHRI GURPREET SINGH GROVER VS. ITO, WARD 2(3), JAIP UR 6 RECEIVED FROM THE APPELLANTS MOTHER SMT. SATISH GR OVER. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THE SAID EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT ON T HE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANTS MOTHER HAS TRANSFERRED RS. 2,00,000/- T O THE APPELLANTS BANK ACCOUNT THROUGH THE BANKING CHANNEL. FIRSTLY, REGA RDING VALIDITY OF THE GIFT DEED, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT DISPUTED THE EXISTENCE AND THE CORRECTNESS OF THE GIFT DEED. FURTHER, IT IS NOT I N DISPUTE THAT THE DONOR SMT. SATISH GROVER HAS ADEQUATE SOURCES OF FUNDS FROM SA LE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND TO GIVE RS.3,00 000/- TO HER SON. THE FACT TH AT SHE HAS TRANSFERRED RS 2,00,000 TO HIS SONS BANK ACCOUNT CANNOT BY ITSELF FORM THE BASIS FOR DENIAL OF CASH GIFTS OF RS 3,00,000 ESPECIALLY WHEN THE DONOR HAS CONFIRMED THE GIFT TRANSACTION TO HER SON AND HAS ADEQUATE RESOURCES T O EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SUCH GIFT. THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE RELATIONSHIP OF DONOR MOTHER AND DONEE SON IS NOT U NDER DISPUTE. NOW, COMING TO THE AMOUNT OF GIFT AND THE AMOUNT THAT WA S DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, ON PERUSAL OF THE GIFT DEED SUBMITTED BEFO RE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, IT IS NOTED THAT RS. 50,000/- WAS GIFTED IN JUNE, 2008 , RS. 1,00,000/- IN JULY, 2008 AND RS. 1,50,000 IN DECEMBER, 2008. IF ONE WERE TO CO-RELATE THE SAID AMOUNT OF GIFT VIS-A-VIS CASH DEPOSITED IN APPELLANTS BAN K ACCOUNT, RS. 49,000/- IN JUNE, 2008, RS. 49,000/- IN JULY, 2008 AND RS. 1,38,000/- IN DECEMBER, 2008 APPEARS TO BE CO-RELATED FROM THE SAID GIFT. TO THIS EXTE NT, THE APPELLANT EXPLANATION IS FOUND PLAUSIBLE AND HENCE ACCEPTED. FURTHER, REGAR DING CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 12,000/- THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID DEPOSIT WAS MADE OUT OF WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 60,000/- MADE IN THE MONTH OF APR IL AND MAY AND RS. 15,000/- DEPOSITED ON 13.03.2009 WAS ON ACCOUNT OF REFUND OF EMI. NOTHING HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT THESE DEPOSITS AND THE EXPLANAT ION OF THE APPELLANT REMAIN UNCONTROVERTED. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE, WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED ADEQUATE EXPLANATION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,63,000/- (RS 2,36,000 FROM CASH GIFTS FROM MOTHER AND RS 27,000 OUT OF OT HER WITHDRAWALS/DEBITS) OUT OF RS. 3,20,500/- SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY WE DIRECT THE AO TO PROVIDE RELIEF OF RS. 2,63,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE . HENCE THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPELLANT IS PARTLY ALLOWED. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED ITA NO. 490/KJP/15 SHRI GURPREET SINGH GROVER VS. ITO, WARD 2(3), JAIP UR 7 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31/03 /2016. SD/- SD/- ( LALIET KUMAR) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 31/ 03 /2016 PILLAI VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- SHRI GURUPREET SINGH GROVER, JAI PUR 2. THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 2(3), JAIPUR 3. THE CIT(A) I, JAIPUR 4. THE CIT-I, JAIPUR 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO 490/JP/15) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR ITA NO. 490/KJP/15 SHRI GURPREET SINGH GROVER VS. ITO, WARD 2(3), JAIP UR 8 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. REGARDING FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL WHERE TH E ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE EXPARTE ORDER PASSED U/S 144 O F THE ACT. IT IS NOTED FROM THE CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 02.03.2015 THAT THIS GROU ND WAS NOT PRESSED HENCE IT WAS DISMISSED. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARI NG ALSO THE SAID GROUND WAS NOT ARGUED. HOWEVER, THE LD. AR IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION STATED THAT HE WAS GIVEN TO UNDERSTAND THAT ON MERITS AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MADE WOULD NOT STAND THE TEST O F APPEAL SO IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO OBJECT OF THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER PASSED U/S 144 OF THE IT ACT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THIS GROUND OF APPEAL WAS NOT PRESSED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). SINCE THE PART OF THE ADDIT ION STAND CONFIRMED IN THE APPEAL SO THIS GROUND THOUGH NOT PRESSED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IS ACCORDINGLY RETREAT. IN OUR VIEW THE PERUSAL OF T HE CIT(A)S ORDER WE COULD NOT FIND ANY DISCUSSION AS FAR AS THE SO CALLED CO NSTRUCTION MADE BY THE APPELLANT BY NOT PRESSING THIS GROUND. ACCORDINGLY WHERE THE GROUND IS NOT PRESSED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IT IS NOT WITHIN THE POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL TO ADJUDICATE THE SAID GROUND AS LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THE SAID GROUND IN EARLIER. IN ANY CASE THE SAID GROUND WAS NOT ARGUED BEFORE THE BENCH AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. AS FAR AS THE ADD ITION OF RS. 3,92,875/- ITA NO. 490/KJP/15 SHRI GURPREET SINGH GROVER VS. ITO, WARD 2(3), JAIP UR 9 MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT MADE IN T HE BANK ACCOUNT TO THE APPELLANT THE LD. AR AT THE OUTSET SUBMITTED TH AT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 3,92,875/- STAND CORRECTED TO RS. 3,20,500/- AS PER THE CIT(A)S ORDER U/S 154/250 OF THE IT ACT. OUT OF THE SAID AMOUNT RS. 3,20,500/- AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2,93,000/- IS ON ACCOUNT OF GIFT RECEIVED FROM THE APPELLANTS MOTHER SMT. SATISH GROVER . THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TURNED DOW N THE SAID EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANTS MO THER HAS TRANSFERRED RS. 2,00,000/- TO THE APPELLANTS BANK ACCOUNT THROUGH THE BANKING CHANNEL. THE APPELLANTS CONTENTIONS THAT HIS MOTHER PROVIDE D A CASH GIFT ON DIFFERENT OCCASIONS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. ON PERUSAL OF THE GIFT DEED SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, IT IS NOTED THAT RS. 50,000/- WAS GIFTED IN JUNE, 2008, RS. 1,00,000/- IN JULY, 2008 AND RS. 1.5 LACS IN DECEMBER, 2008. IF ONE WERE TO CO-RELATE THE SAID AMOUNT OF GIFT VIS-A-VIS CASH DEPOSITED IN APPELLANTS BANK ACCOUNT RS. 49,0 00/- IN JUNE, 2008, RS. 49,000/- IN JULY, 2008 AND RS. 1,38,000/- IN DECEMB ER, 2008 APPEARS TO BE CO-RELATED FROM THE SAID GIFT. FURTHER RS. 12,000 /- THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID DEPOSIT WAS MADE OUT OF WI THDRAWAL OF RS. 60,000/- MADE IN THE MONTH OF APRIL AND MAY AND RS . 15,000/- DEPOSITED ON 13.03.2009. REGARDING VALIDITY OF THE GIFT DEE D IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE DONOR SMT. SATISH GROVER HAS ADEQUATE SOURCES TO GIVE RS.3,00 000/- TO HER SON. FURTHER THE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT DISPUTE D THE EXISTENCE AND THE CORRECTNESS OF THE GIFT DEED. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE, W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED ADEQUATE EXPLANATION TO THE E XTENT OF RS.2,63,000/- OUT OF RS. 3,20,500/- WHICH WAS SUSTAINED Y THE LD . CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY WE DIRECT RELIEF OF RS. 2,63,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE. H ENCE THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPELLANT IS PARTLY ALLOWED. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED.