PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. SHRI GULAM HAIDER ANSARI

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 224 / 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus Shri Gulam Haider Ansari, 3261-62, Majid Mansion, Nawab Ka Chouraha, Ghatgate, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 227 / 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus Shri Gulam Haider Ansari, 3261-62, Majid Mansion, Nawab Ka Chouraha, Ghatgate, Jaipur. ----Respondent

D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 232 / 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus Shri Gulam Haider Ansari, 3261-62, Majid Mansion, Nawab Ka Chouraha, Ghatgate, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 237 / 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus Shri Gulam Haider Ansari, 3261-62, Majid Mansion, Nawab Ka

(2 of 5) [ITA-224/2017]

Chouraha, Ghatgate, Jaipur ----Respondent

D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 244 / 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus Shri Gulam Haider Ansari, 3261-62, Majid Mansion, Nawab Ka Chouraha, Ghatgate, Jaipur. ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 245 / 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus Shri Gulam Haider Ansari, 3261-62, Majid Mansion, Nawab Ka Chouraha, Ghatgate, Jaipur. ----Respondent

_____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi with Mr. Aditya Vijay For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka with Mr. Muzaffar Iqbal _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI Judgment 22/11/2017

In all these appeals common questions of law and facts are involved, hence, they are decided by this common judgment.

(3 of 5) [ITA-224/2017]

By way of these appeals, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeals of the department and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. This Court while admitting the matters framed the following questions of law:- “In DBITA No. 224/2017 “i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,44,736/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A) u/s 56(2) on account of alleged foreign gifts, received by the assessee. In DBITA No.227/2017 “i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,83,110/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A) u/s 56(2) on account of alleged foreign gifts, received by the assessee. In DBITA No. 232/2017 i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 1,26,50,240/- in the case of assessee at 1/3rd of the income on the basis of transactions recorded in seized record marked as Annexure A-2. ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in allowing relief of Rs. 11,00,000/- out of the addition made by the AO on account of entries recorded in seized record marked as Annexure A-2 without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case? iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Hon’ble ITAT has erred in directing the AO to compute income on the basis of transaction recorded in seized record marked as

(4 of 5) [ITA-224/2017]

Annexure A-2 @ 8% of gross receipts instead of treating entire receipts as income?” In DBITA No. 237/2017 “i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 4,58,000/- in the case of the assessee at 1/3rd of the income on the basis of transactions recorded in seized record marked as Annexure A-2. ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in allowing relief of Rs. 50,00,000/- out of the addition made by the AO on account of entries recorded in seized record marked as Annexure A-2 without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case? iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Hon’ble ITAT has erred in directing the AO to compute income on the basis of transaction recorded in seized record marked as Annexure A-2 @ 8% of gross receipts instead of treating entire receipts as income? iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble Tribunal has erred deleting the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of undisclosed jewellery found?” In DBITA No. 244/2017 “i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 68,75,060/- in the case of assessee at 1/3rd of the income on the basis of transactions recorded in seized record marked as Annexure A-2. ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in allowing relief of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- out of the addition made by the AO on account of entries recorded in seized record marked as Annexure A-2 without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case? iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Hon’ble ITAT has erred in directing the AO to compute income on the basis of transaction recorded in seized record marked as Annexure A-2 @ 8% of gross receipts instead of treating entire receipts as income?” iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the

(5 of 5) [ITA-224/2017]

case and in law the Hon’ble Tribunal has erred in deleting the addition made u/s 56(2) of the Income Tax Act on account of alleged foreign gifts received by the assessee.?” In DBITA No. 245/2017 i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 44,91,446/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A) u/s 56(2) on account of foreign gifts, received by the assessee. ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the report of Inland Revenue Department of Hongkong and the business relations of assessee with the donor, which establish that gift received were not genuine?”

Counsel for the appellant has taken us to the order of CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal and contended that looking to the facts which have been decided by the Tribunal, the amount which was received from foreign exchange from the relatives is required to be accepted under Section 56(2) of the Income Tax Act. After hearing the counsels, on other issues, we do not find any ground to interfere with the finding arrived at by the tribunal. In that view of the matter, all the issues are required to be answered in favour of the assessee against the department. All the appeals stand dismissed. (DEEPAK MAHESHWARI)J. (K.S. JHAVERI)J. A.Sharma/