Sachin Kumar, Meerut V. ITO, Meerut

ITA 79/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6371 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHARAT BHUSHAN GARG
• Assessee Lawyers: CHANDER MEHRA
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH MEERUT CAMP AT MEERUT ) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI P RASHANT MAHARISHI ITA NO. 79 /DEL/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 1 0 SACHIN KUMAR, VS. ITO, C/O. MEHRA & CO., CA, WARD - 2(3), 7 - RAJESHWARI PALACE, NEAR NEW DELHI. COMMISSIONER RESIDENCE, CIVIL LINES, MEERUT. (PAN: ACOPK5840N ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI CHANDER MEHRA , C A DE PARTM ENT BY: SHRI BHARAT BHUSHAN GARG , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 1 7 . 1 2 .201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15 : 0 3 .201 6 ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR : JUDICIAL MEMBER THE ASSESSEE HAS QUESTIONED FIRST AP PELLATE ORDER ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.18,58,100 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SEC. 68 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961. IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUND, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE Y EAR THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN GIFT OF RS.18,58,100 CONSISTING OF RS.6 LACS FROM HIS FATHER SHRI BALRAJ SINGH, RS.10 LACS FROM HIS SISTER SMT. ANJU, RS.4 LACS EACH FROM HIS UNCLE SHRI RAGHURAJ SINGH AND SHRI DAVENDER KUMAR AND RS.3 LACS WAS RECEIVED FROM SHRI DEV RAJ ANOTHER UNCLE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT GIFTS WERE RECEIVED IN CASH ON VARIOUS DATES AND THE ASSESSEE 2 HAD DEPOSITED THE SAME INTO HIS BANK ACCOUNT ON VARIOUS DATES IN A PIECE - MEAL MANNER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED SUMMONS TO ALL TH E DONORS WHO APPEARED AND IN THEIR STATEMENTS RECORDED, THEY CONFIRMED THAT THEY HAD GIFTED THE CLAIMED AMOUNTS IN CASH. THEY ALSO STATED THAT THEY ARE AGRICULTURIST BY PROFESSION AND HAVE SUFFICIENT AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS. IN SUPPORT, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURN ISHED DOCUMENTS LIKE KHATAUNI, JOTBAHI AND BANK ACCOUNT ETC. THE LEARNED AR CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE IDENTITY OF THE DONOR BUT DOUBTED ON THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONORS MERELY ON THE BASIS THAT LANDHOLDINGS DOES NOT ENSURE THAT DONORS HAD SUFFICIENT SOURCE OF INCOME OUT OF WHICH THEY CAN GIVE SUCH HUGE AMOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT TRANSACTIONS AS ALL THE GIFTS WERE RECEIVED IN CASH AND THERE WAS NO WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF AN Y OF THE DONORS. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS SIMPLY UPHELD THE ADDITION WITHOUT EXAMINING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS SUPPORTED WITH DOCUMENTS. THE LEARNED AR REFERRED PAGE NOS. 6 TO 3 6 AND 55 TO 68 OF THE PAPER BOOK I.E. COPIES OF SUBMISSIO N MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AND ASSESSING OFFICER, DETAILS OF LANDHOLDINGS, REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE THERETO. THE LEARNED AR ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I) CIT VS. LANDMARK INNOVATION (P) LTD. (2013) 38 TAXMANN.COM 217 (ALL.); 3 II) CIT VS. ORISSA CORPORATION (P) LTD. 159 ITR 78 (SC); III) VARENDER SINGH VS. ITO ITA NO. 6011/DEL/2010 (2012) 31 CCH 467 (DEL.) ; IV) V) SUBHASH CHAND VS. ITO ITA NO. 4928/DEL/2009 (2012) 32 CCH 474 (DEL.); 2. THE LEARNED SENIOR DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT ONUS LIES UPON THE CLAIMANT TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS THOROUGHLY FAILED IN THE PRESENT CASE AS CREDITWORTHINESS OF T HE DONORS IS NOT BEYOND DOUBT. 3. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DOUBT ON THE IDENTITY OF THE DONORS WHO WERE CLOSE RELATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE. SO FAR AS THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED DETAILS OF LAND HOLDINGS OF EACH OF THE DONORS WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN MADE AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO. 36 OF THE PAPER BOOK SHOWING THAT THEY WERE HAVING SUFFICIENT LAND HOLDINGS AS SHRI BALRAJ SINGH WAS HAVING 75 BIGHAS OF LAND, SHRI DEV RAJ SINGH 33 BIGHAS OF LAND, SHRI RAGHURAJ SINGH 60 BIGHAS OF LAND, SHRI DEVENDER KUMAR 55 BIGHAS OF LAND AND SMT. ANJU 24 BIGHAS OF LAND. ALL THESE DONORS HAVE GIFTED THE AMOUNT IN CASH TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS GENERAL PRACTICE IN 4 AGRICU LTURIST TO DEAL IN CASH. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE DOUBTED CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONORS MERELY ON ASSUMPTION AND SURMISES. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT ALL THE DONORS IN RESPONSE OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO THEM BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD APPEARED BEFOR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN THEIR STATEMENTS RECORDED THEY HAVE CONFIRMED THE CLAIMED DONATIONS FROM THEM TO THE ASSESSEE. EVIDENCES LIKE COPIES OF KHATAUNI BAHI, BANK ACCOUNTS, JOT BAHI ETC. OF THE DONORS WERE ALSO FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIMED GIFTS . WE ARE THUS OF THE VIEW THAT WITHOUT EXAMINING VERACITY OF THESE DOCUMENTS, THERE WAS NO REASON WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DOUBT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONORS TO DENY THE CLAIMED GIFTS. WE THUS WHILE SETTING ASIDE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.18,58,100 SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). THE GROUND IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 . IN RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 . 0 3 . 201 6 S D/ - SD/ - ( PRASHANT MAHARISHI ) ( I.C. SUDHIR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 15 / 0 3 /201 6 MOHAN LAL 5 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT(APPEALS) 5) DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR DATE DRAFT DICTATED DIRECTLY ON COMPUTER 1 5 . 0 3 .201 6 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 1 5 . 0 3 .2016 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. 1 5 . 0 3 .2016 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 1 6 . 0 3 .2016 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 15 . 03. 2016 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 1 6 . 0 3 .2016 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DAT E OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.