ANUBHAV AGGARWAL,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO and Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in making incorrect addition of Rs. 57,43,057/-being gifts received from Brother-in-Law residing out of India being received through proper banking channel. 2. Non applicability of Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 as assessee has provided Bank Statements and Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates for all the gifts received. 3. The contention of Ld. AO and Ld. CIT (Appeals) is wrong that the assessee has routed unaccounted funds generated by the flagship company M/s ARK Imports Private Limited and routed these funds from different bank accounts in the name of Anubhav Aggarwal and other group companies i.e. M/s Genex Polyfab Limited, M/s Genex Fincap Private Limited. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO and Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in making incorrect addition of Rs. 54,90,000/-being cheques received from sister, sister's husband and M/s Jasmin Impex which were returned later on.

It emerges out from the record that ITA No. 1282/Chd/2017 and other cases of this group are on Board since 29th March 2017. From the Note Sheet entry, it is seen that Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Shri Jasleen Khera and others have appeared from time to time and thereafter all the Counsels have withdrawn their power of attorney and pleaded no instructions. On 26.9.2024, Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Sanjay Sood, CA also withdrew their power

2 In response thereto, no return of income was filed by the assessee on the ground that he is not having taxable income. The case was taken up for scrutiny and statutory notice u/s 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued on 13.05.2015 and the same was duly served on the assessee. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) issued and complied with. In response to these notices, Sh. Gaurav Gupta, C.A. and Sh. Gaurav Sharma, C.A., authorized representatives of the assessee attended the proceedings with whom the case was also discussed. 2. The assessee is an individual and is claimed to have no source of income. Hence, no return of income was filed by him. 2.1 On examination of assessee's bank account no. 7589 with United Bank of India, Clock Tower, Ludhiana, it is noticed that this bank account is credited with the amount of Rs. 54,90,000/- on different dates from 7.1.2008 to 21.3.2008. 1282 -Chd-2019 Anubhav Aggarwal, Ludhiana

2 In the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain the source of deposit of above amounts in the said bank account. However, no explanation was furnished despite allowing of repeated opportunities. Thus, the source of deposit of Rs. 54,90,000/- in the bank account remained unexplained and is therefore, added to the income: returned. Accordingly, an addition of Rs. 54,90,000/- is made to the income returned. 2.3 Further, on examination of assessee's bank account No. 7589 with United Bank of India, Clock Tower, Ludhiana, it is noticed that this bank account is credited with an amount of Rs. 57,43,057/- on different dates. Period Particulars Amount (In Rs.) 2007-08 Mr. Roman Umaraov 57,43,057/- 2008-09 Mr. Roman Umaraov 66,36,11,825/- 2009-10 Mr. Roman Umaraov 1,62,65,892/- 2010-11 Mr. Roman Umaraov 20,27,66,730/- 2011-12 Mr. Roman Umaraov 52,218/- 2012-13 Ms Swetlana Umaraov 15,17,00,000/- 2013-14 Ms Swetlana Umaraov 78,21,00,000/- Total 1,22,22,39,722/-

4 In the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain the source of aforesaid deposits of on different dates throughout the year under consideration in the said bank account. The assessee as per his letter dated 07.03.2014 explained that these are gifts received during the year under consideration from his brotherrin-law Mr. Raman Umarova and in support its contention enclosed the copies of the remittance advices. 2.5 Since the amount received as gifts during the different periods was substantial say more than 122 Crores and are being received continuously on different dates nearly through out the year(s) and that too without any occasion, the genuineness of receipt of such gifts was required to be examined. Therefore, in order to verify the genuineness of the receipt of gifts as claimed, the assessee was asked to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions justifying the receipt of above amounts as gifts as claimed. He was 1282 -Chd-2019 Anubhav Aggarwal, Ludhiana also specifically asked to establish the relationship with the donee supported with documentary evidence. However, the assessee instead of establishing the genuineness of the receipt of above amounts as a gift and the relationship with the donee, filed his objections on 01.03.2016 which are described in para 2.5 of the assessment order. 2.6 The explanation of the assessee has been considered and found no merit in it. It is a settled law that no person can make a gift even to his near relative without consideration. It is a matter of record that the above gifts has been received not on a particular occasion but in a continuous process. Moreover, it is not evident as to whether the gifts as claimed was ever made and the doner had the resources to make such gifts of a substantial amount. Since the assessee has failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the gifts claimed to have been received from his brother-in- law during the year under consideration and as such it is held that the amount of deposits introduced by 1282 -Chd-2019 Anubhav Aggarwal, Ludhiana the assessee in his bank account in the guise of receipt of gifts represents his undisclosed income earned from undisclosed sources which is liable for taxation. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 57,43,057/- received in the guise of gifts is held to be assessee's own income earned from undisclosed sources and is therefore added to the income returned. Accordingly, an addition of Rs. 57,43,057/- is made to the income returned. 6. We have gone through the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and the appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A). We find that the Assessing Officer has passed a speaking order based on various incriminating documents found and seized from various business and residential premise of the group. Against the order of the Assessing Officer, the Assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on different grounds. The ld. CIT(A), in our view, has passed a speaking order on merit on each and every issue / ground raised by the Assessee in the appeal. The Assessee dissatisfied with the order of the ld. CIT(A) has filed this appeal before the Tribunal but despite giving fifty opportunities to the Assessee,