Smt. Divya Ashokbhai Patel, Baroda V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-2(2), Baroda

ITA 795/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 72859 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BATHEJA
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Gift

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH BEFORE: SRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER SMT. DIVYA ASHOKBHAI PATEL D-902, KALPAVRUS COMPLEX, GOTRI ROAD, BARODA PAN: AIQ PP 4988C (APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-2(2) BARODA (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SRI O.P. BATHEJA, SR.D.R. ASSESSEE BY: SRI M.K. PATEL, A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 26-12-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10-01-20 14 / ORDER PER : G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT:- THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-II BARODA DATED 13-12-2009 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 . 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE IS AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 795/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 I.T.A NO.795/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE N O DIVYA ASHOKBHAI PATEL VS. ITO 2 1 THAT ON FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A), HA S GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN PARTIALLY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3 ,16,500/- U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. 3. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HIS GROUND OF APPEAL CONSISTS OF VARIOUS ITEMS MENTIONED AGAINST SERIAL NO. 4 TO 8 IN PARA 2.1 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER OF CIT(A). 4. THE FIRST ITEM IS OF RS. 1,05,500/- OF CASH DEPO SITED BY THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SAME SUBMI SSION AS BEFORE CIT(A) REGARDING THIS ISSUE. THE DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF AO AND CIT(A). WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT DISCHARGE THE SAME AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION WAS R IGHTLY SUSTAINED BY CIT(A) AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,05,500/- IS DISMISSED. 5. SECOND ITEM IS RELATING TO ADDITION OF RS. 25,00 0/- OF SRI HR SHAH. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SRI HR SHAH HAS FILED CONFIRMATION WITH PAN NO AND AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED T HROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF AO AND CIT( A). WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS FILED CONFIRMATION AND THE PAN NO. OF THE DEPOSITOR AND C REDITED THE AMOUNT THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. THERE IS NO ADVERSE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE TO DISCREDIT THE EV IDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS. 25,000/ - MADE BY AO IS DELETED AS ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE THEREOF AND TH E GROUND OF APPEAL TO THAT EXTENT IS ALLOWED. I.T.A NO.795/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE N O DIVYA ASHOKBHAI PATEL VS. ITO 3 6. THIRD ITEM IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS. 54, 000/- OUT OF PERSONAL LOAN OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE HEARD PARTIES ON THI S ISSUE. WE FIND THAT NO EVIDENCE FOR THE PERSONAL LOAN OF THE ASSESSEE COUL D BE ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN UPHO LDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 54,000/- AND THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS C ONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL TO THIS EXTENT IS DISMISSED. 7. FOURTH ITEM IS GIFT OF RS. 1 LAC FROM THE GRAND MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE SMT SHARDA PATEL. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE GRAND MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS OF 83 YEARS OF AGE AND T HE COPY OF GIFT DEED WAS FILED AND THE ASSESSEE BEING GRAND DAUGHTER HAS REC EIVED THE GIFT WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE DONOR. LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF AO AND CIT(A). WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED GIFT THROUGH GIFT DEED EXECUTED BETWEE N THE DONOR AND THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING A VERY CLOSE RELA TION OF BEING GRAND DAUGHTER OF THE DONOR. THE DONOR WAS A SENIOR CITI ZEN AND WAS OF 83 YEARS OF AGE. NO ADVERSE MATERIAL COULD BE PRODUCED BY T HE REVENUE TO DISCREDIT THE EVIDENCE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE F ACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ONUS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE GEN UINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IS DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCOR DINGLY THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 LAC ON ACCOUNT OF GIFT FROM GRAND MOTHER IS DELET ED AND GROUND OF APPEAL TO THIS EXTENT IS ALLOWED. 8. THE LAST ADDITION IS OF RS. 32,000/- REPRESENTIN G SUNDRY RECEIPTS. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND NO EVIDE NCE TO PROVE SOURCE OF SUNDRY RECEIPTS COULD BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE A ND ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER I.T.A NO.795/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE N O DIVYA ASHOKBHAI PATEL VS. ITO 4 OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO THIS EXTENT IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) ( G.C. GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER V ICE PRESIDENT AHMEDABAD : DATED 10/01/2014 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,