MADAN LAL JAIN,JODHPUR vs. ITO WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

Briefly the facts of the case are that an information was received by the Department that assessee has sold an immovable property of Rs. 1,94,62,000/- and received interest other than securities, Oriental Bank of Commerce of Rs. 2508/- for the assessment year under consideration. Assessee was a non-filer

Aggrieved with the assessment order, the appellant has filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the finding of the AO by passing an order ex-parte qua the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) stated that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal and accordingly, the addition disallowances made by the AO are confirmed.

The Ld. AR submitted that the appellant assesse has filed a detailed reply dated 11.02.2023 before the Assessing Officer (in short “the AO”) stating therein that the returned income filed on 11.03.2023 in response to notice u/s 148 vide acknowledgement no. 953615630110223. The copies of ITR V and computation of income are herewith attached as Annexure 1. The AR further submitted that the assesse did not carry any business activity during the year

The AR contended that the appellant has also filed a copy of registries of the aforesaid properties being gifted to his son attached as Annexure 2 for reference forming part of APB Page no. 10-66. The Ld. AR explained that the aforementioned gifts were made out of the properties purchased by the appellant from Dunger Ram on 29.04.2005 (Plot No. 3 which was further sub- divided into Plot No. 3A and 3B at the time of gift) and the Plot No. 9 was purchased from Gheesu Khan as agriculture land in 2003 and later on converted into residential plot and patta of the same was issued by the Jodhpur Development Authority (JDA) in the name of the assesse on 15.11.2023. The appellant has filed copies of the registries and pattas as Annexure 3 before the AO. The Ld. AR argued that the Ld. CIT(A) without going

The Ld. DR on the other hand has supported the impugned order but he did not rebut the factual contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant.

We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record and the impugned order. Admittedly, the appellant assessee has gifted his properties to his son amounting to Rs. 1,94,62,000/- which was purchased on 29.04.2005. The Ld. AO has stated that assessee could not furnish any documentary evidence regarding the source of purchase of the property. It is noted that the appellant assessee had income below the taxable limits for the year under consideration and, therefore, he did not file any return of income. It is seen that the appellant assessee has no business income and he has gifted his own property to his son and that the appellant has also filed the detailed documentary evidences regarding purchase of properties such as copies of registry (property deeds), Pattas of the property and registered gift deeds to his own son Shri Ankit Jain (APB Pg No. 10-66), along with copy of the Bank Statement of his savings account and the PPF account for the year under consideration.

We find that the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) has brushed aside the submissions of the appellant assessee and given absurd observation to arrive at such illogical conclusions to make addition in mechanical manner that the considerations received from the gift of immovable property Rs. 1,94,62,000/- and received interest of other than securities Oriental Bank of Commerce of Rs. 2508/- remained unexplained against the natural gift made by a father to his son. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) order is perverse to the facts on record and would liable to set aside.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.