SACHIN KUMAR,MEERUT vs. ITO, MEERUT

ORDER

PER I.C. SUDHIR: JUDICIAL MEMBER The assessee has questioned first appellate order on the sole ground that the Learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.18,58,100 made by the Assessing Officer under sec. 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In support of the ground, the Learned AR submitted that during the year the assessee has taken gift of Rs.18,58,100 consisting of Rs.6 lacs from his father Shri Balraj Singh, Rs.10 lacs from his sister Smt. Anju, Rs.4 lacs each from his uncle Shri Raghuraj Singh and Shri Davender Kumar and Rs.3 lacs was received from Shri Dev Raj another uncle of the assessee. He submitted that gifts were received in cash on various dates and the assessee 2 had deposited the same into his bank account on various dates in a piece- meal manner. The Assessing Officer had issued summons to all the donors who appeared and in their statements recorded, they confirmed that they had gifted the claimed amounts in cash. They also stated that they are agriculturist by profession and have sufficient agricultural holdings. In support, the assessee had furnished documents like khatauni, jotbahi and bank account etc. The Learned AR contended that the Assessing Officer accepted the identity of the donor but doubted on the creditworthiness of the donors merely on the basis that landholdings does not ensure that donors had sufficient source of income out of which they can give such huge amount. The Assessing Officer also doubted the genuineness of the gift transactions as all the gifts were received in cash and there was no withdrawal from the bank accounts of any of the donors. The Learned CIT(Appeals) has simply upheld the addition without examining the submissions of the assessee which was supported with documents. The Learned AR referred page Nos. 6 to 36 and 55 to 68 of the paper book i.e. copies of submission made before the Learned CIT(Appeals) and Assessing Officer, details of landholdings, remand report of the Assessing Officer and reply of the assessee thereto. The Learned AR also placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Landmark Innovation (P) Ltd. (2013) – 38 Taxmann.com 217 (All.); 3 ii) CIT vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. – 159 ITR 78 (SC); iii) Varender Singh vs. ITO – (2012) – 31 CCH 467 (Del.) ; iv) v) Subhash Chand vs. ITO – ITA No. 4928/Del/2009 (2012) – 32 CCH 474 (Del.);