Dharmender Kanduri, Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer(i/c), Ward-12(4), Hyderabad

ITA 98/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5906 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2019
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NILANJAN DEY
• Assessee Lawyers: K A SAI PRASAD
• Keywords: Gift; Salary income
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH SMC, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.98/HYD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 D HARMANDER KANDURI, HYDERABAD. PAN: AROPK 5618 F VS. ITO (I/C) WARD - 12(4), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI K.A. SAI PRASAD REVENUE BY: SRI NILANJAN DEY, DR DATE OF HEARING: 25 /07/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25 /0 9 /2019 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 1, HYDERABAD DATED 31/08/2017 IN APPEAL NO.0300/CIT(A) - 1/2009 - 10/2017 - 18 PASSED U/S. 143(3) & U/S. 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL HOWEVER, THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AO FOR RS. 15 LAKHS. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL E ARNING INCOME FROM SALARY FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2007 - 2 08 ON 24/07/2007 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 8,51,290/ - . THEREAFTER, THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 31/12/2009 WHEREIN TH E LD. AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 15 LAKHS BEING THE UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LD. AO TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH IN HIS BANK ACCOUN T ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. ON QUERY IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 15 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED FROM HIS IN - LAWS. TO JUSTIFY THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FURTHER FURNISHED A LETTER FROM HIS MOTHER - IN - LAW SMT. B. SABITA RANI WHEREIN IT WAS STATED AS FOLLOWS: - I AM B. SABITA RANI W/O. LATE B. MURALI MOHAN WRITING THIS ON BEHALF OF MY HUSBAND ABOUT THE AMOUNT GIVEN TO OUR SON - IN - LAW K. CHARMANDER. WE HAVE GIVEN THE MONEY AMOUNTING RS. 15,00,000 AS A GIFT FOR MY DAUGHTER K. SHALINI ON HER MARRIAGE T HAT TOOK PLACE ON 10 TH JANUARY, 2007. SOME PART OF MONEY WE GAVE IN THE ENGAGEMENT CEREMONY ON 15 TH NOVEMBER, 2006. THE REMAINING MONEY WE HAVE ARRANGED IN THREE MONTHS FROM THE ENGAGEMENT DATE GIVING SOME MONEY EVERY MONTH TILL FEBRUARY. 5. HOWEVER, T HE LD. AO WAS NOT SATISFIED BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED FURTHER DETAILS OF HIS IN - LAWS TO EXPLAIN THE IR SOURCE FOR RS. 15 LAKHS. THEREFORE, THE LD.AO ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 15 LAKHS TO HIS INCOME INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT . ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) AGREED WITH THE VIEW OF THE LD. AO. 6. AT THE OUTSET, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THE SOURCE FOR THE GIFT 3 RECEIVED FOR RS. 15 LAKHS AND ALSO FURNISHED LETTE R FROM HIS IN - LAWS. THE REVENUE WAS AT LIBERTY DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THEM TO SUMMON THE ASSESSES IN - LAWS OR MAKE FURTHER ENQUIRIES IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, WITHOUT TAKING ANY SUCH STEPS THE LD. AO HAD S IMPLY PROCEEDED TO MAKE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BASED ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEES IN - LAWS DID NOT HAVE SUCH FUNDS FOR GIFTING IT TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS ENDORSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) . CONSIDERING THE FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BACKGROUND, IT IS NOT UNUSUAL FOR HIM TO RECEIVE SUCH SUM AS GIFT FROM HIS IN - LAWS. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AO ON THIS ISSUE WHICH IS FURTHER SUSTAINED BY THE L D. CIT (A) IS NOT WARRANTED. HENCE, I HEREBY DIRECT THE LD. AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE FOR RS. 15 LAKHS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCE D IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH SEPTEMBER, 2019. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 25 TH SEPTEMBER , 2019 OKK COPY TO: - 1) D HARMANDER KANDURI C/O. CH. PARTHASARATHY & CO., 1 - 1 - 298/2/B/3, 1 ST FLOOR, SOWBHAGYA AVENUE, ST. NO.1, ASH O K ANGER, HYDERABAD 020. 4 2) ITO (I/C), WARD - 12(4), AAYAKA R BHAVAN, BASHEER BAGH, HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT(A) - 1 , HYDERABAD 4) THE PR. CIT - 1, HYDERABAD 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE