DEB PRASANNA CHOUDHURY,KOLKATA vs. ADIT/DCIT (IT) - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2012-13 dated 13.05.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 23.12.2019. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 105 days. The assessee submitted that he is an NRI, stays in UAE and at the time when he arrived in India due to medical conditions, could not file appeal before the Tribunal within time. After perusing the petition for condonation of delay filed by the assessee we find force in the reasons mentioned therein and are satisfied that the assessee had The above referred documents were completely ignored and bypassed while passing the Remand Report inspite of being documented in Remand Report No. F.NO.DCIT(IT)1(1)/Kolkata/Appeal/2022-23/24 dated 10/01/2023 3. That an Amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- was transferred from his SBI savings account no 11107941129 to his ICICI Savings Bank account no.: 089501501366 through normal banking channels. That on 12/03/2012 an Fixed Deposit was prematurely closed amounting to Rs. 22,94,931 only and subsequently on the same date Vide RTGS по. SBIH12072341357 an amount of Rs. 50,00,055 only was debited his SBI savings Bank account no. 11107941129 [Annexure-3A] while crediting the ICICI savings Bank account no 089501501366 for Rs. 50,00,000 only [Annexure-38] being Inter Bank Transfer both accounts belonging to Appellant only.

The Gift Deed was made on 4th August 2020 which was authenticated and Notarized by California Notary, USA (Annexure- 4A] for the purpose of clarification of Fund wherein of Rs. 80,00,000/- was directly received/Credited into his Kotak Mahindra Bank account по. 1111146441 [Annexure- 4B] from his Brother-in-Law's, Mr. Sajal Kundu SBI account no. 10457689697 [Annexure- 4C], Relative as per U/s 56(2)(il) (vii) through normal banking channels.”

The assessee also relied upon the judicial pronouncement in Atul H. Patel v ITO [2022] 138 taxmann.com 454 (Ahmedabad Bench) and several other decisions in support of the claim that the amount received from the relative was exempt. Since the necessary documentary evidence in support of the claim that the amount was received from the relative, there was no occasion to insist on a gift deed for excluding the amount received from the brother-in-law. The money has been received through banking channel. The addition, if any, should be made in the hand of the relative of the assessee only and the exemption for the purpose of section 56(2)(x) of the Act does not require any gift deed but only the sum being received from any relative which has not been disputed in the order. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the addition upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby deleted. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in his appeal are allowed.