IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH SMC KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S, GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.759/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2004-05 ANJANA GARODIA C/O SUBASH AGARWAL & ASSOCIATES, SIDDHA GIBSON, 1, GIBSON LANE, SUITE-213, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATG-69 [ PAN NO.ADPPG 3085 K ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-49(2), UTTRAPANA MARKET COMPLEX, MANICKTALLA, CIVIC CENTRE CIT SCHEME VIM ULTADANGA BLOCK DS 2 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA-54 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 20-02-2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28-02-2019 /O R D E R THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 , ARISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-15, KOLKATAS ORDER DATED 21.03.2018 PASSED IN CASE NO.366/CIT(A)-15/15-16/WD-49(2)/KOL INVOLV ING PROCEEDINGS U/S. 254 R.W.S. 251 R.W.S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING ASSESSEE AT THE OUT SET IN NOT PRESSING FOR ASSESSEES FORMER SUBSTANTIVE GROUND CHALLENGING VA LIDITY OF RE-ASSESSMENT IN ISSUE. 3. COMING MERITS I FIND THAT THIS IS THE SECOND ROU ND LITIGATION REGARDING CORRECTNESS OF ASSESSEES GIFT CLAIM TO THE TUNE OF 11.88 LAC. THIS TRIBUNALS CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO.34/KOL/2010 HAD RESTORES T HE INSTANT ISSUE VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 02.05.2014 BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO C ARRY OUT NECESSARY FACTUAL VERIFICATION. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THANIMPUGNED GIFTS TO HAVE COME FORM 13 DONORS NAMELY, (1) GOVIND PD. NOHAL (2 ), UMA SHANKAR SHUKLA (3) ITA NO.759/KOL/2018 A.Y.2004-05 ANJANA GARODIA VS. ITO WD-49(2), KOL. PAGE 2 SATYA BHAMA AAATHI (4) ANITA PODDAR (5) MANJU JAISW AL (6) KAMAL CHHAPARIA (7) PREMLATA AGARWAL (8) SHASHI DEVI LOHIA (9) ALOK KR. JHUNJHUNWALLA (10) SEEMA BHUWALKA (11) BASANT KR. PATNI, (12) VIKASH KR. SIN GH AND (13) VIJOY KR. JAJODIA, INVOLVING SUMS OF 1 LAC, 1.01 LAC, 1.11 LAC, 80,000/-, 1.20 LAC, 50,000/-, 71,000/-, 1 LAC, 1.30 LAC, 25,000/-, 1 LAC EACH IN LAST THREE CASES; RESPECTIVELY. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ADDED THE IMPUGNED SUMS ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE COULD PROVE ONLY MEAGRE SOURCE OF INCOME OF HER DON ORS. I HAVE GIVEN MY THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RIVAL CONTENTIONS. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD DULY PRODUCE DONORS NO.2, 4, 6, 9 & 13 DURING THE INSTANT SECOND ROUND AND DONOR NO. 3 HAD EXPIRED BEFORE BEING SUMMONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LEARNED D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAILS TO DISPUTE THAT ALL THE SAID SPECIFIC DONORS DULY PUT IN APPEARANCE AND CONFIRMED THE ASSESSEES CASE. IT FURTHER TRANSPIRES THAT DEP ARTMENT HAS NOT MADE ANY ADDITION IN THEIR HANDS QUA THE IMPUGNED SUM(S) ISSUE. I TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES TO TREAT ASSESSEES GIFT CLAIM REGARD ING SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH, SIXTH, NINTH & THIRTEEN DONORS HEREINABOVE TO BE SUCCESSFULLY PR OVED. I DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FINALIZE CONSEQUENTIAL COMPUTATION AS PE R LAW ACCORDINGLY. 4. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN ABOV E TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 28/02/2019 SD/- (S.S. GODARA ) JUDICIAL MEMBE R KOLKATA, *DKP/SR.PS - /02/2019 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-ANJANA GARODIA, C/O SUBASH AGARWAL & ASS OCIATES SIDDHA GIBSON, 1 GIBSON LANE, SUITE-213, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKTA-69 2. /RESPONDENT-ITO WARD-49(2) UTTRAPAN MARKET COMPLEX, MANICKTALLA, CIVIC CENTRE CIT SCHEME VIM ULTADANGA BLCOK DS 2 2 ND FLOOR KOLKATA-54 3. ' % / CONCERNED CIT 4. % - / CIT (A) 5. & ))' , ' / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. + / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ / ',