Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI
PER BENCH:
These matters were taken up for hearing through Video Conferencing mode. These three appeals by the two different assessees are arising out of the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai in Appeal Nos. CIT(A)- 37/I.T.483 to 489/ACCC-13/11-12 & CIT(A)-37/I.T. 504 to 508/ACCC-13/11-12 even date 27.06.2012. The Assessments were framed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 13, Mumbai (in short ACIT/ITO/ AO) for AYs 2003-04, 2004-05 vide dated 16.12.2011, under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that he is pressing only ground No. 4.1 to 4.3 and 5 and not pressing the rest of the grounds. On this, the learned CIT Departmental Representative Shri V. Sreekar has not raised any objection.
First of all it is stated by the learned counsel that identical issue of jurisdiction is therein in all the three appeals and issue is arising out of the same search conducted. The facts and circumstances are exactly identical in all the appeals i.e. in & 5541/Mum/2012 except quantum, hence, we will take the facts from ITA No.5544/Mum/2012 for Assessment Year 2003-04 and decide the issue.
4.2 While doing so, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that:
(i) the Appellant had duly/ fully explained the source of the gifts received by hi, by placing on record all the relevant documentary evidences;
(ii) all the gifts received by the Appellant were genuine gifts; and (iii) the action of the Assessing Officer in making the alleged addition was based purely on surmises, suspicion and conjectures.
Briefly stated facts are that a search under section 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of Shri Jayant B. Patel and connected persons including assessee on 10.01.2007, consequent to this search, certain materials were found and additions were made which were subject matter challenged before but not challenged by assessee rather these grounds are withdrawal as noted above.
The only issue before us remains is of unexplained gifts received by assessee and addition made by Assessing Officer of ₹15,59,555/-, whereas CIT(A) confirmed the addition of ₹14,09,555/- after allowing relief of ₹1.5 lacs.
Before us the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that assessee has shown this gift of ₹15,59,555/- in his computation of income filed along with return of income for Assessment Year 2003-04 filed originally on 30.09.2003. Subsequently in response to notice under section 153A of the Act, the assessee filed its return of income on 19.05.2008. In the original return of income, the assessee specifically filed name and address and PAN No. of the person giving gifts. The learned Counsel for the assessee before us now stated and took us through the assessment order and argued that no incriminating material was found during the course of search in respect to these unexplained gifts rather these gifts are declared in the return of
This is being a consequential ground, the Assessing Officer will consider the argument of the assessee afresh and then will decide this issue. Hence, we remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.