Smt. Sarabjeet Kaur, Meerut V. ACIT, Meerut

ITSSA 44/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2353 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 19-09-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL GULATI
• Keywords: Gift; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Corroborative evidences; Block assessment
• Section: 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.(SS)A. NO. 44/DEL/2009 BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 1997-98 TO 2003-04 (UPTO 23.12.2002) SMT. SARABJEET KAUR, VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-2 341, SOTI GANJ, MEERUT MEERUT (PAN: AOCPK7550B) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SANDEEP SAPRA, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. SATPAL GULATI, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING ON : 19/09/2016 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 27/09/20 16 PER H.S. SIDHU, JM ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.3.2009 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-MEERUT RELATING TO BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD (UPTO 23.12.202) 1997-98 TO 2002- 03 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE ID. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ANNULLED / CAN CELLED THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER BECAUSE NO SATISFACTION A S CONTEMPLATED IN SECTION 158BO HAD BEEN RECORDED BY THE A.O. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE IMPUGN ED ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT ILLEGAL. 2 2. THAT THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.5,00,OOO /- BEING THE AMOUNT OF LOAN FROM SHRI SURENDER SINGH ILLEGALLY R EJECTING THE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS MADE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCES O N RECORD AND ALSO PRODUCED BEFORE HIM DURING APPELLATE PROCE EDINGS. 3. THAT THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS. 7,75,000/ - BEING THE AMOUNT OF GIFT RECEIVED FROM SHRI HAR AVTAR SINGH, A NRI, THROUGH PROPER BANKING CHANNEL BY TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM U.K. TO DONOR'S BANK ACCOUNT IN INDIA WITHOUT PROPERLY C ONSIDERING THE FACTS AND VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AVAILAB LE ON RECORDS. 4. THAT THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.53,360/ - BEING THE AMOUNT OF ALLEGED INTEREST CREDITED BY THE FINANCE COMPANY TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT, IGNORING THE FACT THA T THE INTEREST SO CREDITED WAS REVERSED DURING THE YEAR ITSELF AND THE APPELLANT HAS NEVER BEEN PAID THE SAID AMOUNT OF INTEREST. 5. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE SPECIFIC GROUNDS , THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE BY UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS REJECTING APPELLAN T'S SUBMISSIONS THAT SHE WAS NOT HAVING ANY SOURCE OF I NCOME WHATSOEVER DURING THE YEARS UNDER REFERENCE AND THE REFORE NO DEEMED INCOME U/S 68 AND/OR 69 COULD BE ASSESSED IN HER HANDS IN VIEW OF THE HON'BLE S.C'S JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF P.K. NOORJAHAN 236 ITR 560. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, MODIFY A ND/OR DELETE ANY GROUND OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE HEARIN G OF APPEAL. 3 2. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NO T DISPUTED BY THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE, HENCE, THE SAME ARE N OT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED THE GROUND NO. 1, HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMIS SED AS SUCH. WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 2 TO 5, ARE CONCERNED, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE IS HAVING ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FOR SUBSTANTIATING HER CLAIM, BUT THE REV ENUE AUTHORITIES HAS NOT GIVEN THE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASS ESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM BEFORE IT. IN FACT THE ASS ESSEE HAS GIVEN THE EXPLANATION WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FOR SUB STANTIATING THE CLAIM, BUT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. HE REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AND FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO UNDERTAKES THAT ASSESSEE WILL FULLY COOPERATE IN THE ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS AND WILL NOT TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR OBJECTED THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL AND RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITY. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS AVAILABLE. WE FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE CO NTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE EXPLANATION WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FOR SUB STANTIATING THE CLAIM, BUT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DIS PUTE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION, AS PER LAW, AFTER CONSI DERING ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS DI RECTED TO FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE AO DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFOR E HIM AND NOT TO 4 TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT IN THE CASE AND AL SO PRODUCE ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO TO SUBSTANTIA TE HIS CLAIM. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27/09/2016 . SD/- SD/- [O.P. KANT] [H.S. SIDHU ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 27/09/2016 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES