Smt. Sunita Rani, Panchkula V. ITO, Panchkula

ITA 727/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9733 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARMA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 727/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) SMT.SUNITA RANI, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, HOUSE NO.525A, WARD-5, SECTOR 15, PANCHKULA. PANCHKULA. PAN: AKUPR8858B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARMA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 22.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.07.2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, GURGAON DATED 29.3.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, CHALLENGING THE ADDITION O F RS.7,467/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF REGISTRATION FEES FOR PROPERT Y AND ADDITION OF RS.1,97,400/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT FOR PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY FO R PROPERTY. 2 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD MADE TRANSACTION OF RS.32,90,000/- WITH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ESTATE OFFICER, CHANDIGARH. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) AND ASSESSEE FILED R ETURN OF INCOME AT RS.1,51,000/-. REGARDING THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSING OF FICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDE NCE PERTAINING TO THE TRANSACTION. FROM THE DETAILS FU RNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,467/- ON ACCOUN T OF SALE CONSIDERATION/REGISTRATION CHARGES AND STAMP D UTY OF RS.1,97,400/- DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPE AL. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAS RECEIVED GIFT F ROM HER PARENTS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE GIFT WAS R ECEIVED IN CASH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DON OR AND ACCORDINGLY, MADE ADDITION OF RS.2,04,867/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, BEING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 3. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), HOWEVER, DESPITE GIVING OPPO RTUNITY TO ARGUE THE APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE REMAINED EX-PARTE AND NO MATERIAL WAS ADDUCED BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT IN THE MATTER. THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 3 4. I HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED D.R. AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE REFERRED TO AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH SHE HAS STATED THAT SHE HAS RECEIVED RS.2,11,000/- FROM HIS FATHER, LATE SHRI OM PARKASH GUPTA THROUGH GIFT. H IS FATHER DIED ON 9.1.2007. THE GIFT WAS GIVEN IN THE PRESENCE OF HER MOTHER SMT.VEDWATI AND SISTER SMT.S HASHI BALA ON 4.1.2007. THE AFFIDAVIT OF SMT.VEDWATI IS ALSO FILED AFFIRMING THE SAME FACTS. THE COPY OF DEATH CERTIFICATE OF HER FATHER IS ALSO FILED ON RECORD. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT IN THE MATTER. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED TH AT AT THE MOST, THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED THE IDENTITY OF T HE DONOR BUT FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE GI FT IN THE MATTER. 5. ON CONSIDERATION OF THESE FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, I AM NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN MAKING THE ADDITION. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED CASH AMOUNT IN QUESTION AS GIFT FROM HER FATHER. THE BURDEN IS, T HEREFORE, UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE DONO R, HIS CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IN THE MATTER. THE ASSESSEE FILED HER AFFIDAVIT AND A FFIDAVIT OF HER MOTHER ONLY AND NO EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN FILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT AND CREDITWORTHIN ESS OF 4 THE DONOR. THE AFFIDAVIT AT THE MOST, COULD BE CON SIDERED TO PROVE IDENTITY OF DONOR BUT MERE FILING OF THE A FFIDAVIT AS CONFIRMATION WOULD NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR AND GENUINENESS OF TH E TRANSACTION IN THE MATTER. I RELY UPON THE DECISIO N OF THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARATI PVT. LTD. VS. CIT, 111 ITR 95 AND UNITED COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL COMPANY PVT. LTD., 187 ITR 596. CONSIDE RING THE ABOVE FACTS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IN THE MATTER. THER EFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FAILS AND DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 26 TH JULY, 2016 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH