Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
Appellantby : Shri Keyur Bavishi, CA Respondent by: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 12.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement 16.12.2022 O R D E R
The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-5, Ahmedabad on 30.10.2018 for A.Y. 2010-11.
The grounds of appeal
raised by the assessee are as under: “1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of cash deposit to the bank account amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/- u/s. Sec 69(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of Disallowance of gift received from relatives.
2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming re-opening assessment by AO u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thereby confirming assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. It is therefore prayed that above addition confirmed by CIT(A) may please be deleted.
4. Appellant craves leave to alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.”
Shri Ashokbhai Amrutbhai Valand vs. ITO Asst.Year–2010-11 - 2 - 3. The assessee has not filed his return of income for A.Y. 2010-11. As per information available on ITD system, the assessee deposited cash of Rs. 10,42,000/- during the period corresponding to 2010-11. The first notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2017 which was served upon the assessee. In response of the said notice the assessee filed return of income under Section 148 of the Act declaring total income of Rs. 1,44,000/-. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 10,42,000/- and treated the same as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act.
Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.
The Ld. A.R. submitted that in pursuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act on 31.03.2017 for A.Y. 2010-11 for non-filing of return of income, the notice issued was on 31.03.2017 but the same was not received by the assessee as per prescribed time limit. Beside this the Ld. A.R. submitted that the notice issued and the date of approval is one and the same and therefore, the notice should not be taken as a valid notice. On merit the Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has given additional evidence before the CIT(A) and categorically mentioned that the amounts received in cash was related to getting Visa and are gifts from relatives of the assessee. For which the assessee has filed gift deed agricultural receipts and proof of agricultural income of the mother, father and other relatives of the assessee. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) has Shri Ashokbhai Amrutbhai Valand vs. ITO Asst.Year–2010-11 - 3 - accepted the fact that the gift from father, mother was genuine but has rejected, confirm the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- in case of Rati Lal Parikh, Gauriben Parikh, Jagdish Bhai Valand and Sumatibhai Valand. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the cash receipt from these relatives are genuine gift as the assessee was proportionate for obtaining Visa at the particular juncture and therefore, the family of the assessee help the assessee to acquire the same fund. The Ld. A.R. submitted that gift deed is a genuine gift and therefore, the CIT(A) cannot ignore the same.
The Ld. D.R. submitted that the issuance of notice under Section 148 on 31.03.2017 is a valid notice as simply stating that date of approval and date of issuance of notice cannot be identical is not justifiable by the assessee. As regards merit the Ld. D.R. submitted that the CIT(A) after verifying the genuinity of the gifts rightly made the addition in respect of other relatives.
Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that to meet the emergency situation of additional expenses by the assessee the assessee has obtained cash not only from assessee’s father and mother but also the close relative i.e. the maternal uncle, maternal aunt as well as paternal uncle and paternal aunt and the said relation cannot be doubted by the Assessing Officer. The gift offered by this relatives are appears to be genuine and therefore, the CIT(A) was not right in confirming the addition of the extent of Rs. 4,00,000/-. As regards, the legal ground of the assessee merely that date of approval is identical to the issuance of Shri Ashokbhai Amrutbhai Valand vs. ITO Asst.Year–2010-11 - 4 - notice cannot be treated as the time barring or non-valid notice under Section 148 of the Act. Therefore, the submission to that extent of the assessee is rejected. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 16/12/2022