Rajesh Kumar Singhania, Kolkata V. D.C.I.T CC - X,kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 945/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 83179 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K TRIPATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E
• Keywords: Gift

Judgement Text

, SM C , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SM C BENCH: KOLKATA ( ) BEFORE , ) [BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM] / I.T.A NO. 9 45 /KOL/20 1 3 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 2 - 0 3 RAJESH KUMAR SINGHANIA VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, (PAN:AKLPS3181R) CENTRAL CIRCLE - X, KOLKATA. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 2 5 . 11 .201 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27 . 1 1 .201 4 FOR THE APPELLANT : N O N E FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI K. K. TRIPATHI , JCIT, SR. DR / ORDER THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ARI SING OUT OF ORDER OF CIT(A) , CENTRAL - II, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 99 / CC - X/ CIT(A) C - II/05 - 06 DATED 2 7 . 0 2 .201 3 . ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY DCIT, CC - X, KOLKATA U/S. 14 3(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 2 - 0 3 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 29 . 03 .20 0 5 . 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED GIFT OF RS.1.25 LACS. 3. I HAVE HEARD LD. SR. DR AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. I FIND TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED GIFTS FROM FOLLOWING FOUR PERSONS: I) SMT. ANITA AGARWAL - RS.25,000/ - II) SHRI SHYAM SUNDAR AGARWAL - RS.25,000/ - III) SMT. URMILA SINGHANIA - RS.25,000/ - IV) SHRI RAJESH KUMAR SINGHANIA - RS.50,000/ - THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED DOCUMENTS IN THE FORM OF COPY OF I D CARD, COPY OF RETURNS OF INCOME WITH PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2002 AND COPY OF BANK PASS BOOKS IN RESPECT OF THESE DONORS. ACCORDING TO AO, THESE PERSONS RETURNED INCOME AND CAPITAL WAS VERY LESS. HENCE, HE TREATED THE GIFT AS NOT GENUINE AND ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE CREDITWORTHINESS, HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,21,000/ - U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), WHO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY OBSER VING IN PARA 7 AS UNDER: 2 ITA NO. 945 /K/201 3 RAJESH KUMAR SINGHANIA AY 20 0 2 - 0 3 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND PERUSED ASSESSMENT ORDER. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE REMAND REPORT AND THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONORS AS WELL AS THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION. IT IS OBSERVED THAT IN THE CASE OF ANITA AGARWAL, SHE HAD GIVEN GIFT OF RS.25,000/ - AND HER SOURCE OF INCOME WAS MAINLY STI T CHING CHARGES. HER PERSONAL WITHDRAWALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03 WAS ONLY RS.23,380/ - . IN THE CASE OF SHYAM SUNDAR AGARWAL, THE SOURCE OF INCOME WAS SHOWN AS INTEREST AND ACCOUNTING CHARGES. HE HAS SHOWN GIFT OF RS.25,000/ - WHEREAS HIS OWN WITHDRAWALS FOR THE YEAR WAS RS.10,000/ - ONLY. SMT. URMILA SINGHANIA HAD SHOWN RETURNED INCOME OF RS.17,687/ - AND CLAIMED TO HAVE GIVEN GIFT OF RS.21,000/ - AND HER OWN WITHDRAWAL WAS RS.20,000/ - . SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF RAKESH KUMAR SINGHANIA, THE SOURCE OF INCOME WAS INTEREST AND DIVIDEND HAVING RETURNED INCOME OF RS.54,000/ - FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03. HE HAD GIVEN GIFT OF RS.50,000/ - TO THE APPELLANT WHEREAS HIS OWN WITHDRAWAL WAS RS.25,000/ - . FROM THE ABOVE, IT MAY BE OBSERVED THAT ALL THE DONORS WERE HAVING MEAGER AMOUN T OF INCOME AS WELL AS CAPITAL. THEIR OWN WITHDRAWALS WERE LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF GIFT GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. IF THE DONORS WERE HAVING SMALL AMOUNT OF INCOME, GENERALLY THEY WOULD PREFER TO SPENT MONEY ON THEIR OWN OR ON THEIR FAMILY RATHER THAN SPEND ING THE MONEY IN GIVING GIFTS. IT IS VERY UNUSUAL THAT THESE PERSONS WOULD GIVE GIFT TO THE APPELLANT WHEREAS THEIR OWN CAPITAL AND YEARLY WITHDRAWALS WERE VERY LESS. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION AND THEREFORE THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED MAKING ADDITION OF RS.1,21,000/ - U/S. 68 OF THE I. T. ACT. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, KOL IN THE CASE OF BASANTI DEVI NAHATA VS. ITO, WD - 29(4), KOL ITA NO. 2144/KOL/2009 D T. 13.04.2010. IN VIEW OF ABOVE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,21,000/ - MADE BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED. THE GROUND NO. 1 & 2 ARE DISMISSED. 4. I FIND THAT IN EACH OF THE CASE, AS NOTED BY CIT(A) THAT THERE IS SOURCE OF INCOME AND THIS IS ONLY A MEAGER AMOUNT OF GIFT S RECEIVED RANGING FROM RS.21,000/ - TO RS. 50,000/ - . ALL THE FOUR DONORS ARE ASSESSED TO TAX AND THEIR CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEETS ARE FILED BY ASSESSEE. HENCE, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REASONABLE PROVED THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENU INENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE . I FIND NO REASON TO SUSTAIN THIS ADDITION AND HENCE, THE SAME IS DELETED . APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . 6 . ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 7 . 1 1 . 2 0 1 4 S D / - , (MAHAVIR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 2 7 T H NOVEMBER , 201 4 JD.(SR.P.S.) 3 ITA NO. 945 /K/201 3 RAJESH KUMAR SINGHANIA AY 20 0 2 - 0 3 - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . / A PPELLANT SH RI RAJESH KUMAR SINGHANIA, P - 52, BLOCK - A, BANGUR AVENUE, KOLKATA - 700 053. 2 / RESPONDENT DCIT, CC - X, KOLKATA . 3 . ( )/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. / CIT KOLKATA / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA / TRUE COPY, / BY ORDER, /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .