The ITO, Ward-9(4), Surat V. Shri Umesh Veerbhadra Udapudi, Surat

ITA 783/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9730 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 09-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P JANGID
• Assessee Lawyers: KAMLESH N BHATT
• Keywords: Gift

Judgement Text

, D IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO.783/AHD/2011 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-2008 ITO, WARD - 9(4) SURAT. VS SHRI UMESH VEEBHADRA UDAPUDI 19, PRAGATI NAGAR SOCIETY NR.CHOKSHI WADI, ADAJAN, SURAT. PAN : AACPU 1089 M ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KAMLESH N. BHATT REVENUE BY : SHRI J.P. JANGID / DATE OF HEARING : 09/07/2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17/07/2015 $%/ O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A)-I, SURAT DATED 19.11.2010 PASSED FOR THE ASS TT.YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT TH E LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.11,87,684/-. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 27.10.2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3 ,67,800/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSE SSMENT AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.783/AHD/2011 2 3. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED A LOAN OF RS.11,87,684 /- FROM HIS FATHER, SHRI VEERBHADRAPPA UDAPUDI. DURING THE ACC OUNTING PERIOD RELEVANT TO THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR, THIS LOAN HAS BEE N TREATED AS GIFT FROM THE FATHER TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AO REJECTE D THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THE FACT THAT UNSECURED LOAN HAS BEEN CONVERTED INTO GIFT. ACCORDINGLY, HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.11,8,684/-. 4. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION. FINDING RECORDED BY THE CIT(A) READS AS UNDER: 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND I DO NOT AGREE W ITH THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S VIEW BECAUSE - I. THE DONOR OF GIFT IS NOBODY ELSE BUT THE FATHER OF THE APPELLANT AND HE IS ASSESSED TO TAX. II. IN THE COPY OF BALANCE SHEET THE AMOUNT OF LOAN /GIFT IS ALSO REFLECTED. LII. AS THE DONOR IS NOT ALIVE HENCE THERE IS NO QU ESTION OF SUBMISSION OF CONFIRMATION TO THIS EFFECT FROM HIM. IV. THE APPELLANT HAS CREDITED THIS AMOUNT TO HI S CAPITAL ACCOUNT SHOWING AS GIFT FROM HIS FATHER AS PER HIS FATHER'S WISH. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT MORE DETAIL IS REQUIRED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDIT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. TH EREFORE, IN MY VIEW THE APPELLANT HAS RIGHTLY CREDITED HIS CAPITAL BY CONVERTING LOAN FROM HIS FATHER TO GIFT. HENCE THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE TUNE OF RS.11,87,689/- IS HEREBY DELETED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS ALLOW ED. 5. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIV E, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE FATHER OF THE AS SESSEE WAS A RADIOLOGIST, RUNNING X-RAY CLINIC. HE HAS STOPPED PRACTICE AND SETTLED AT HIS NATIVE PLACE AT BELGAUN (KARNATAKA). HE HAS GI VEN CERTAIN AMOUNT AS LOAN TO HIS SON FOR RUNNING THE PROFESSION OF HI S FATHER. PRESUMABLY ITA NO.783/AHD/2011 3 THAT LOAN HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET O F THE ASSESSEE IN THIS YEAR, WHICH HAS BEEN TREATED AS GIFT FROM THE FATHE R. THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NOTH ING UNUSUAL IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHICH PERSUADE D THE AO TO DOUBT ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT RECEIVED FROM THE FATHER BY THE SON. CONSIDERING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN IT, WHICH WE CONFIRM. 6. IN THE RESULT OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY THE 17 TH DAY OF JULY, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER