LILA Y. AUNDHE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 18(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3492/MUM/2012Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 September 2016AY 2006-073 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision that the gifts amounting to Rs.4,29,524/- from unrelated parties were doubtful and therefore sustained the addition.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer treated cash gifts of Rs.14,99,524/- as unexplained cash credits. The CIT(A) considered gifts from close family members as explained but treated the balance of Rs.4,29,524/- as unexplained.

What were the issues?

Whether cash gifts from unrelated parties, to the extent of Rs.4,29,524/-, could be treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI

For Respondent: Shri A Ramchandran
Hearing: 08/09/2016Pronounced: 16/09/2016

ORDER PER G.S.PANNU,A.M:

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment year 2006-07 is directed against an order passed by CIT(A)- 29 Mumbai dated 16/03/2010 which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 16/02/2008.

2.

At the time of hearing, it was noted that none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor has any application for adjournment placed before us inspite of notice of hearing being served upon the assessee. Therefore, we proceed to dispose-off the appeal ex-parte qua the appellant after hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative on merits in terms of Rule -24 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

3.

In this appeal, the only ground raised by the assessee is that the lower authorities have erred in treating the gifts to the extent of Rs.4,29,524/- as unexplained.

4.

After hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative and perusing the orders of the authorities below, it is found that the relevant facts are that in the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer treated the cash gifts received by the assessee of Rs.14,99,524/- as unexplained cash credits within the meaning of section 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) held that out of the total gifts, Rs.10,70,000/- was received from very close family members and relatives and, therefore, he considered the same as explained and the balance of Rs.4,29,524/- was treated as unexplained. This addition is in challenge before us.

5.

The order of the CIT(A) clearly establishes that each of the gift claimed by the assessee has been appropriately considered. The CIT(A) considered the submissions of the assessee and also called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. After considering the material on record, the CIT(A) has found it appropriate to consider gifts to the extent of Rs.10,70,000/- as explained. So far as the amount of gift of Rs.4,29,524/- is concerned, we find no reason to interfere with the conclusion of the CIT(A), which is hereby affirmed. Notably, the CIT(A) has concluded that the probability of assessee having received such gifts from unrelated parties is doubtful. For the said reasons we affirm the stand of the CIT(A) and accordingly, the addition of Rs.4,29,524/- is hereby sustained.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →