Sh. Manish Bansal, Panchkula V. ITO, Panchkula

ITA 953/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9844 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 28-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Gift; Income from undisclosed sources; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 953/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI MANISH BANSAL, VS THE ITO, S/O SHRI RAMESH BANSAL, WARD 3, HOUSE NO. 31, PANCHKULA. SECTOR 17, PANCHKULA. PAN: AFRBP7090M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI T.N.SINGLA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 22.06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.06.2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) PANCHKULA DATED 18.07.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANISH BANSAL VS ITO, WARD-3, PANCHKULA IN ITA 67/2015 VID E JUDGEMENT DATED 10.08.2015 REMANDED THE MATTER IN ISSUE TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH RELATING TO CONFIRMING OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,75, 000/-. THE APPEAL WAS, THEREFORE, FIXED FOR HEARING ON THI S ISSUE AS PER DIRECTIONS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. 2 3. THE ASSESSEE STATED TO HAVE RECEIVED RS. 1,75,000/- ON 30.11.2006 FROM HIS SISTER MRS. RASHI BANSAL ON ACCOUNT OF GIFT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER N OTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EXPLANATION OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF TH E GIFT, THEREFORE, ADDITION OF RS. 1,75,000/- WAS MAD E ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AMOUNT IN QUESTION FROM HIS SISTER MRS. RA SHI BANSAL AS GIFT ON 30.11.2006 THROUGH CHEQUE. THE L D. CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, NOTED THAT SOURCE OF CREDIT IS CLAIMED TO BE NRI GIFT FROM ASSESSEE'S SISTER. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED SINCE TILL DATE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED EVEN TO FILE CONFIRMATION OF TH E GIFT. 4. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN ITA 953/2011 ON VARIOUS GROUNDS INCLUDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,75,000/-. THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DECIDED VIDE ORDER DATED 28.08.201 4. THE TRIBUNAL HAS REJECTED THE ADMISSION OF ADDITION AL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF GIFT DEED, BECAUSE, NO REAS ONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN FOR NON FILING OF GIFT DEED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ACCORDINGLY, GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND ADDITION OF RS. 1,75,000/- WAS UPHELD. 3 5. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT WHICH IS DECIDED VIDE JUDGEMENT DATED 10.08.2015 (SUPRA). HON'BLE HIGH COURT NOTED THAT, A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL SHOWS THAT NO COGENT AND CONVINCING REASON S HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR NOT ACCEPTING T HE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF GIFT DEED AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,75,000/-. CONSEQUENTLY, THE MATTER IS REMANDED BACK TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR DECIDING IT AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER HEARING LD. COUNSEL FOR PARTIES AND TAKING IN TO CONSIDERATION ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. I HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT EARLIER COP Y OF THE GIFT DEED WAS FILED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL AND IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT DUE TO LACK OF GUIDANCE FROM THE COUNSEL, THE SAME COULD NOT BE FURNISHED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE AFFIDA VIT OF THE ASSESSEE IS FILED IN WHICH IT WAS AFFIRMED THAT ASSESSEE RECEIVED GIFT OF RS. 1,75,000/- FROM HIS S ISTER MRS. RASHI BANSAL VIDE CHEQUE NO. 969636 DATED 30.11.2006. IT IS ALSO EXPLAINED IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT GIFT DEED COULD NOT BE FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS THE COUNSEL DID NOT GUIDE THE ASSESSEE EAR LIER TO SUBMIT THE GIFT DEED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELO W. 4 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SIN CE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS RELEVANT AND GOES TO THE ROO T OF THE MATTER, THEREFORE, SAME MAY BE ADMITTED FOR HEARING AND MATTER MAY BE REMANDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-CONSIDERATION AFRESH. 6(I) ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. ON CONSIDERATION OF RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I AM OF T HE VIEW THE MATTER REQUIRES RE-CONSIDERATION AT THE LE VEL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFO RE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS RECEIVED AS GIFT FROM HIS SISTER THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL OUT OF LOVE AND AFFECTION. THE SAME IS SUPPORTED BY COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE DONOR AND FURTHER BANK ACCOUNT OF CROWN CABLES PVT. LTD. FROM WHERE THE DONOR HAS RECEIVED THE AMOUNTS THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED C OPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND INCOME TA X RETURN OF MRS. RASHI BANSAL, DONOR. THESE FACTS, THEREFORE, CLEARLY SUPPORT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE RECEIVED GIFT OF RS. 1,75,00 0/- FROM HIS SISTER THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THEREFORE , GIFT DEED PRODUCED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL IS RELEVANT AND REQUIRED TO BE LOOKED INTO BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT WOULD ALSO GO TO THE ROO T OF THE MATTER AND AS SUCH RELEVANT AND NECESSARY TO BE 5 ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE REASON EXPLAI NED BY ASSESSEE FOR NOT PROVIDING SAME BEFORE AUTHORITI ES BELOW SHOWS ASSESSEE HAD BEEN PREVENTED BY SUFFICIE NT CAUSE IN NOT PRODUCING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW. I, ACCORDINGLY, ADMIT THE GIFT D EED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF HEARING. I RELY UPON DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TEK RAM 262 CTR 118 AND DECISION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MUKTA METAL WORKS 336 ITR 555. 8. IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED HERE THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL ITSELF, ASSESSEE RECEIVED ANOTHER AMOUNT OF RS. 5 LACS THROUGH CHEQUE FROM HIS SISTER MRS. RASHI BANSAL, NRI AS GIFT. THE COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN FILED BY THE DONOR IN U.S., BANK STATEMENT A ND CERTIFICATE FILED AS FRESH EVIDENCE WERE SENT TO TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FOR COMMENTS AT THE FIRST APPELLA TE STAGE BY LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N THE REMAND REPORT CONFIRMED THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT GIFT SEEMS TO BE CORRECT. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS ), THEREFORE, DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS ON AC COUNT OF GIFT RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE OF RS. 5 LACS FROM HIS SISTER SMT. RASHI BANSAL. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEAL S) ON THIS GROUND HAS REACHED FINALITY BECAUSE THERE I S NO APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT TO THE TRIBUNAL. 6 9. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS NOTED ABOVE AND THAT ON EARLIER OCCASION, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS VERIFIED THE GIFT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS SISTER SMT. RASHI BANSAL ON FILING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHI CH WERE FOUND TO BE CORRECT AND GIFT OF RS. 5 LACS HAV E BEEN ACCEPTED AND ADDITION HAVE BEEN DELETED, THEREFORE, WHEN SIMILAR EVIDENCES ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD I.E. BANK STATEMENT OF DONOR SMT. RASHI BANS AL, HER INCOME TAX RETURN AND BANK CERTIFICATES, GIFT D EED IS ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ABOVE AND GIFT D EED WAS NOT EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFOR E, IT WOULD BE RELEVANT AND NECESSARY TO REMAND THIS ISSU E TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-CONSIDERATI ON AND PASSING THE ORDER AFRESH WITH REGARD TO GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT OF RS. 1,75,000/- IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I SET ASIDE TH E ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTO RE THE ISSUE OF GIFT OF RS. 1,75,000/- TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER SHALL CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ADMITTED ABO VE AND OTHER EVIDENCES ALREADY ON RECORD I.E. BANK STATEMENT OF DONOR, HER INCOME TAX RETURN AND CERTIFICATE OF THE BANK, AS WAS ALSO CONSIDERED FOR OTHER GIFT OF RS. 5 LACS. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FI LE COPY 7 OF THE GIFT DEED SO ADMITTED ABOVE BY ME FOR FINAL ADJUDICATION OF THE MATTER BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER . 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 23 RD JUNE, 2016. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD