ANJU JOSHI, RAJASTHAN V. ITO 14(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 5240/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0705 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 26-07-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAGADISH P JANGID
• Keywords: Gift; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/ SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) & SANDEEP GOSAIN (JM) I.T.A. NO. 5240 /MUM/20 13 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 03 - 04 ) SMT. ANJU JOSHI C/O. GUPTA GARG & COMPANY (CA) H - 1/35, RAM VIHAR BUILDING OPP. GPO, M.I. ROAD JIAPUR (RAJASTHAN) VS. ITO 14(2)(3) MUMBAI ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) PAN NO .ADCPJ6531E ASSESSEE BY NONE DEPARTMENT BY SHRI JAGADISH P. JANGID DATE OF HEARING 16.5 . 201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 6 . 5 . 201 7 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKAR AN (AM) : - THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.10.2006 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) - XIV, MUMBAI AND IT RELATES TO A.Y. 2003 - 04. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN THOUGH THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED ON THE EAR LIER OCCASION AT THE REQUEST OF THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX - PARTE, WITHOUT PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. SOLITARY ISSUE URGED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO ASSESSMENT OF ` 32,98,265/ - U/S 68 OF THE ACT, BEING G IFT OF RIB BONDS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM NON - RESIDENT INDIAN . SMT. ANJU JOSHI 2 4. WE HEARD LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RIB BONDS FROM MR. MAHENDRA DURLABHI DESAI AND SHE ENCASHED THE SAME PREMATURELY IN OCTOBER 2 002. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THE SAME U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED INTIALLY THAT THE DONOR W AS HER MATERNAL UNCLE , BUT LATER ON CHANGED HER STAND BY STATING THAT THE DONOR WAS HER FRIEND. IT WAS NOTICE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR AND HENCE THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION 5. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), WE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE RULES AND REGULATIONS RE LATING TO RIB BONDS, WHEREIN IT HAS B EEN STATED THAT THE BONDS CAN BE GIFTED TO A RESIDENT INDIAN. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE STATE BANK OF INDIA , WHICH ISSUED THE BONDS, HAS STATED AT THE TIME OF ISSUING THE BONDS THAT THE SAME SHALL BE FREE FROM INCO ME TAX, WEALTH TAX AND GIFT TAX. WE NOTICED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT ADDRESSED THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE HAS NOT MADE ANY REFERENCE TO THE SCHEME UNDER WHICH RIB BONDS WAS ISSUED. UNDER THESE SET OF FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS I SSUE REQUIRES FRESH EXAMINATION AT THE END OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE HIS ORDER AND RESTORE THE SAME TO HIS FILE FOR EXAMINING THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, AP PEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER HAS BE E N PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 1 6 . 5 .201 7. SD/ - SD/ - (SANDEEP GOSAIN ) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 1 6 / 5 / 20 1 7 SMT. ANJU JOSHI 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( DY./ ASSTT. REGISTRAR) PS ITAT, MUMBAI