Smt. Alkaben M. Rachh, RAJKOT-GUJARAT V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 538/RJT/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6744 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 31-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift; Income from undisclosed sources; Additional evidence; Question of law
• Section: 143(3); 143(1); 131; 148; 68

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (CONDUCTED THROUGH E - COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.538 /RJT /2013 / ASSTT. YEAR : 2004 - 2005 SMT. ALKABEN MUKESHBHAI RACHCHH , B.B. HOUSE , 5 - COLLEGE WADI, KATHIYAWAD GYMKHAN A , RAJKOT . PAN: A EWPR 8689A VS . I.T.O , WARD - 1(2 ) , RAJKOT . AND ./ ITA NO.537 /RJT/2013 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2004 - 2005 SHRI MUKESHBHAI G RACHCHH , B.B. HOUSE , 5 - COLLEGE WADI, KATHIYAWAD GYMKHAN A , OFF RADHA KRISHNA ROAD, RAJKOT . PAN: A BXPR3061L VS. I.T.O , WARD - 1(2) , RAJKOT . (APPLICANT) ( RESPON D ENT ) ASSESSEE BY : WRITTEN SUBMISSION REVENUE BY : SHRI PRAVEEN VERMA, SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 27 / 03 / 201 9 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08 / 04 /201 9 / O R D E R ITA NO.538 & 537 /RJT/2013 ASSTT. YEAR 2004 - 05 2 PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL S HAVE BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF DIFFERENT ASSESSE E AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDER OF THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) - II , RAJKOT [ LD. CIT (A) IN SHORT] OF EVEN DATED 01/10 /2013 ARISING IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S. 143(3) AND 143(3) R.W.S . 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( HERE - IN - AFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S (AY) 20 04 - 2005 AND 2003 - 04 . THE ISSUES RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE COMMON , THEREFORE WE DECIDED TO DISPOSE OF BOTH THE APPEALS TOGETHER. 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP ITA NO. 538/AHD/2013 FOR THE AY 2004 - 05. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ''LD.AO ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/ - IN RESPECT OF GIFT U/S.68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( TH E ACT) AND THE ''LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. 2. THE ''LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IGNORING THE DECISIONS, REFERRED AND RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLA NT, WITHOUT PASSING ANY COMMENT THEREON. 3. THE ONLY EFFEC TIVE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE LD.CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO FOR RS. 5 LACS U/S 68 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF GIFT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF KAPAS (RAW COTTON) IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF BALAJI TRADING CO. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION RECEIVED A GIFT OF RS. 5,00,000/ - FROM THE SMT. NITA S. BAVISH (DONOR) WHO IS AN NRI, BASED AT SUDAN WHICH WAS CREDITED TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT. ITA NO.538 & 537 /RJT/2013 ASSTT. YEAR 2004 - 05 3 4.1 THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF GIFT RECEIVED FILED THE COPY OF THE PASSPORT OF THE DONOR, A COPY OF CHEQUE RECEIVED FROM THE DONOR AND AFFIDAVIT OF THE DONOR. IN SUCH AN AFFIDAVIT, THE DONOR ADMITTED THAT SHE HAD GIVEN A GIFT TO ASSESSEE BECAUSE OF NATURAL LOVE & AFFECTION. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE DONOR IS A CLOSE FRIEND FOR TEN YEARS AND SHE HAS RECEIVED THE GIFT IN THE EARLIER YEAR ALSO. 5. HOWEVER, THE AO FOUND THAT A STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT AY 2003 - 04 ON DATED 16 - 03 - 2005, WHEREIN SHE ADMITTED THAT SHE HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY GIFT EXCEPT THE AY 2003 - 04. THE AO FURTHER ON VERIFICATION OF THE NRE ACCOUNT OF THE DONOR FOUND THAT I. THE ACCOUNT WAS OPENED ON THE DATE 26 - 06 - 2003 BY DEPOSITING A SUM RS. 2305 AND AFTER THAT, THERE WAS A DEPOSIT OF RS. 4,98,740/ - DATED 27 - 06 - 2003. II. ON VERY NEXT DAY, I.E. , 28 - 06 - 2003 THE DONOR ISSU ED A CHEQUE OF RS. 5 LACS TO THE ASSESSEE. III. THERE WAS NO MAJOR TRANSACTION EXCEPT THE DEPOSIT OF MONEY AND ISSUE OF THE CHEQUE AS A GIFT TO VARIOUS PARTIES IN SUCH NRE A/C. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE AO OPINED THAT THE GIFT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE DONOR DESCRIBED ABOVE IS NOT GENUINE AS WELL AS WITHOUT ANY NATURAL LOVE AND AFFECTION. 5.1 THE AO REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT THE GIFT TRANSACTION WAS ROUTED THROUGH SUCH HAWALA ENTRIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ITA NO.538 & 537 /RJT/2013 ASSTT. YEAR 2004 - 05 4 AO MADE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT FOR RS. 5.00,000/ - TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO BY OBSERVING AS U NDER: 8.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT, FINDINGS OF THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE A.O. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE EASE RECORDS OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS SMT. ALKABEN RACHCHH FOR A.YS. 03 - 04 , 04 - 05 & 05 - 06. I FIND THAT, ON SIMILAR SET OF FACTS IN THE APPELLANT'S OWN CASE, THE LD, CTT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 200.5 - 06 BY RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT IN THE CASE OF DINESH BABULAL THAKKAR 39 SOT 332 AND HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO ESTABLISH ITS CASE AND FAILS ON ALL COUNTS OF HUMAN PROBABILITY, SOURCE, RELATIONSHIP, OCCASION AND RECIPROCITY IN SO RECEIVED 8.3 THE HON'BLE ITAT, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT, VIDE ITS COMMON ORDER IN THE CASES OF SHRI MUKESH GIRDHARLAL RACHCHH & SMT. ALKABEN MUKESHBHAI RACHCHH IN ITA NO.44, 45 & 46/RJT/2012., DT . 5/10/2012 FOR A.YS. 2004 - 05 & 2005 - 06 DISMISSED THE APPELLANT'S APPEALS AND UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE LD. C1T(A). IN FACT, THE APPELLANT SEEMS TO BE REGULARLY USING THIS METHOD OF BOGUS , GIFTS FOR CONVERTING HIS UNACCOUNTED INCOME INTO ACCOUNTED INCOME. 8.4 FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO, I.E .. A.Y. 2004 - 05, THE APPELLANT, HAS NOT BEEN ABL E TO PROVE THE FINANCIAL CAPACITY OF THE DONOR, OCCASION FOR GIFT AS WELL AS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DONOR. THUS, GIVING OF SUBSTANTIAL GIFTS IN THIS CASE IS OUTSIDE THE REALM OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SO SUBMITTED COULD HAVE BEEN EASI LY PROCURED IN CASE OF A CLOSE RELATIVE AND A GENUINE GIFT. MOREOVER, GENUINENESS OF A GIFT CAN BE SHOWN BY RELATIONSHIP AND ACQUAINTANCE WHICH SHOULD BE OF SUCH A DEGREE SHOWING EMOTIONAL BONDAGES SO AS TO PROMPT AND MOTIVATE THE DONOR TO PART AWAY HIS HA RD EARNED MONEY TO THE DONEE. SUCH ACQUAINTANCE OR RELATIONSHIP HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED BY SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES, PAST HISTORY OF THE DONORS, THEIR MUTUAL RELATIONSHIP AND HELP TO EACH OTHER - IN THE PAST OR BLOOD RELATIONSHIP ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ONE CO ULD INFER A BONDAGE OF AFFECTION BETWEEN DONOR AND DONEE . HOWEVER, GIFTS ARE NOT FEASIBLE WHERE THERE IS NO RECIPROCITY WHICH IS AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF GIFTS IN SOCIETY WHILE GIVING SUCH GIFT TO 1 EACH OTHER. IT CANNOT BE MERE A ONE WAY PROCESS THAT ONLY D ONOR HAS GIVEN GIFT TO THE DONEE AND AT NO POINT OF TIME THE DONEE HAS GIVEN ANYTHING TO THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE DONOR. ANOTHER ASPECT OF SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES TO ESTABLISH GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT IS THE OCCASION ON WHICH THE GIFT WAS GIVEN . ITA NO.538 & 537 /RJT/2013 ASSTT. YEAR 2004 - 05 5 8.5 IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH SOURCE, RELATIONSHIP, OCCASION AND RECIPROCITY IN RESPECT OF THE GIFTS SO RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AND ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS HEREBY C ONFIRMED . THIS GROUND OF DISMISSED. 7 . BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8 . THE LD. AR BEFORE US FILED PAPER BOOK RUNNING FROM PAGES 1 TO 56 AND SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS SUCH AS BANK STATEM ENT, CONFIRMATION FROM THE DONOR ET C WERE FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ACCORDINGLY , THE LEARNED AR BEFORE US PRAYED THAT THE AMOUNT OF GIFT C OULD NOT BE TREATED AS BOGUS. 9 . ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET , WE FIND THAT IN THE IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE OWN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEARING ITA NO 46/RJT/2012 AND BEARING MA NO 22/ RJT/2012 FOR AY 2005 - 06 DATED 10 - 07 - 2013, THE ITAT HAS CONFIRM ED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. IT IS ESSENTIALLY A QUESTION OF FACT AS TO WHETHER A PARTICULAR GIFT IS GENUINE OR NOT. SIMILARLY, THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF CREDIT ENTRIES FOUND RE CORDED IN HIS BOOKS IS ALSO A QUESTION OF FACT. JUDICIAL DECISIONS HELP US IN UNDERSTANDING THE LEGAL POSITION. WE HAVE PERUSED ALL THE JUDGMENT CITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER PAPER - BOOK AND TAKEN NOTE OF THE PRINCIPLES EMERGING FROM THEM. THE FACT OF THE MA TTER, HOWEVER, IS THAT THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO GENUINENESS OF GIFT IS ESSENTIALLY A QUESTION OF FACT. 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ''LD.CIT(A). BOTH THE AUTHORITIES HAVE CONCURRENTLY RECORDED FINDINGS OF FACTS THAT THE IMPUGNED GIFT IS NOT GENUINE. THEY HAVE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES, FREQUENCY OF GIFTS CLAIMED BY BOTH OF THEM TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN THE PAST, ABSENCE OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DONOR AND DONE, ABSENCE OF OCCASION ON WHICH THE GIFT COULD BE GIVEN ETC . IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE IMPUGNED GIFT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE GENUINE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE DO NOT SEE ANY VALID REASON TO TAKE A VIEW DIFFERENT FROM THE VIEW CONCURRENTLY TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER AND THE LD.CIT(A). THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . ITA NO.538 & 537 /RJT/2013 ASSTT. YEAR 2004 - 05 6 10 .1 AS THE FACTS IN THE CASE ON HAND ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THEREFORE WE ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE SAME IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON BLE MADRAS HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. L.G. RAMAMURTHI 1977 CTR (MAD.) 416 : [1977] 110 ITR 453 (MAD.) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 'NO TRIBUNAL OF FACT HAS ANY RIGHT OR JURIS DICTION TO COME TO A CONCLUSION ENTIRELY CONTRARY TO THE ONE REACHED BY ANOTHER BENCH OF THE SAME TRIBUNAL ON THE SAME FACTS. IT MAY BE THAT THE MEMBERS WHO CONSTITUTED THE TRIBUNAL AND DECIDED ON THE EARLIER OCCASION WERE DIFFERENT FROM THE MEMBERS WHO DECIDED THE CASE ON THE PRESENT O CCASION. BUT WHAT IS RELEVANT IS NOT THE PERSONALITY OF THE OFFICERS PRESIDING OVER THE TRIBUNAL OR PARTICIPATING IN THE HEARING BUT THE TRIBUNAL AS AN INSTITUTION. IF IT IS TO BE CONCEDED THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN THE PERSONNEL OF THE OFFICERS WHO MANNED THE TRIBUNAL, IT IS OPEN TO THE NEW OFFICERS TO COME TO A CONCLUSION TOTALLY CONTRADICTORY TO THE CONCLUSION WHICH HAD BEEN REACHED BY THE EARLIER OFFICERS MANNING THE SAME TRIBUNAL ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS, IT WILL NOT ONLY SHAKE THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PUBLIC IN JUDICIAL PROCEDURE AS SUCH, BUT IT WILL ALSO TOTALLY DESTROY SUCH CONFIDENCE. THE RESULT OF THIS WILL BE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON ARBITRARINESS AND WHIMS AND FANCIES OF THE INDIVIDUALS PRESIDING OVER THE COURTS OR THE TRIBUNALS AND NOT REACHE D OBJECTIVELY ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS PLACED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES. IF A BENCH OF A TRIBUNAL ON THE IDENTICAL FACTS IS ALLOWED TO COME TO A CONCLUSION DIRECTLY OPPOSED TO THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY ANOTHER BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ON AN EARLIER OCCASION, T HAT WILL BE DESTRUCTIVE OF THE INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY ITSELF. THAT IS THE REASON WHY IN A HIGH COURT, IF A SINGLE JUDGE TAKES A VIEW DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE TAKEN BY ANOTHER JUDGE ON A QUESTION OF LAW, HE DOES NOT FINALLY PRONOUNCE HIS VIEW AND THE MATTER IS REFERRED TO A DIVISION BENCH. SIMILARLY IF A DIVISION BENCH DIFFERS FROM THE VIEW TAKEN BY ANOTHER DIVISION BENCH IT DOES NOT EXPRESS DISAGREEMENT AND PRONOUNCE ITS DIFFERENT VIEWS, BUT HAS THE MATTER POSTED BEFORE A FULLER BENCH FOR CONSIDERING THE QUE STION. IF THAT IS THE POSITION EVEN WITH REGARD TO A QUESTION OF LAW, THE POSITION WILL BE A FORTIORI WITH REGARD TO A QUESTION OF FACT. IF THE TRIBUNAL WANTS TO TAKE AN OPINION DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE TAKEN BY AN EARLIER BENCH, IT SHOULD PLACE THE MATTER B EFORE THE PRESIDENT OF THE TRIBUNAL, SO THAT HE COULD HAVE THE CASE REFERRED TO A FULL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL CONSISTING OF THREE OR MORE MEMBERS FOR WHICH THERE IS PROVISION IN THE IT ACT ITSELF.' 10 .2 THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON HAND ARE IDENTICAL TO THE F ACTS OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT - A. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . 10.3 IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.538 & 537 /RJT/2013 ASSTT. YEAR 2004 - 05 7 NOW COMING TO ITA NO 537/RJT/2013 FOR AY 2003 - 04 11 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL: 1. THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE VALIDITY OF RE - OPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF T HE IT ACT. WHICH IS BED IN LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143 (3) R.W.S 147 WAS VOID - AB - INITIO. 2. THE ID. AO ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 11,00,0007 - IN RESPECT OF GIFT U/S. 68 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE A CT') AND THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. 3. THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN IGNORING THE DECISIONS, REFERRED AND RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT, WITHOUT PASSING ANY COMMENT THEREON. 12 . THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO . 1 IS THAT THE LD.CIT (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT IS IN VALID. 12 .1 BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RU NNING A GINNING PRESSING MILL. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION RECEIVED A GIFT OF RS. 5,00,000/ - FROM SHRI SHURESH BHAI M MEHTA ON 21 - 12 - 2002 AND RS. 6,00,000/ - FROM TOLIYA SARYUBALA B. ON 24 - 10 - 2002. THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. 13 . HOWEVER, THE AO FURTHER NOTICED FROM THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING FOR AY 2003 - 04 OF SMT. ALKABEN M. RACHCHH , WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS ALSO ASSESSED IN THE SAME WARD IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ASSESSED THAT THE SIMIL AR GIFT TRANSACTION WAS PROVED AS NON - GENUINE GIFT AND ADDITION W AS ACCORDINGLY MADE VIDE ORDER DATED 29 - 03 - 2006 IN HER ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.538 & 537 /RJT/2013 ASSTT. YEAR 2004 - 05 8 ACCORDINGLY, THE AO CONSIDERING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE RE - OPENED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2003 - 04 U/S 147 BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT DATED 21 - 04 - 2006. 14 . AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT (A) WHO CONFIRMED THE VALIDITY OF THE RE - OPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT . 15 . BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE IS AN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. AR BEFORE US FILED PAPER BOOK RUNNING FROM PAGES 1 TO 102 AND CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL. 16 . ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 17 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ADVANCE ANY ARGUMENT ON THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT (A). THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT - A. HENC E THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 18 . THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUND NO. 2 IS THAT THE LD.CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 11 LACS U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF THE BOGUS GIFT RECEIVED. 19 . AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY US IN APPEAL VIDE ITA NO 538/RJT/2012 IN GROUND NO. 1 PARA NO. 10 OF THIS ORDER. WE HAVE ITA NO.538 & 537 /RJT/2013 ASSTT. YEAR 2004 - 05 9 DISCUSSED IN DETAILED OUR FINDING IN THAT ORDER. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INF IRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A). HENCE THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 19 .1 IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 20 . IN THE COMBINE RESULT THE APPEALS FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 08 /04 / 2019 AT AHMEDABAD. - SD - - SD - (RAJPAL YADAV ) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (TRUE COPY) A HMEDABAD; DATED 08 / 04 /2019 MANISH