Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE
ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeal)[NFAC] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated for A.Y.2017-18 dated 27.10.2023, emanating from assessment order u/sec.143(3) of the Act, dated 03.12.2019. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
Swathi Kewal Nemmaniwar [A] “1. The impugned order of the learned Authorities below in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case.
2. The Appellant denies himself liable to be assessed on a total income of Rs.82,94,430/- as against the returned income of Rs. 31,44,430/- by the Appellant, under the facts and circumstances of the case.
The learned Authorities below are not justified in making an addition of Rs.51,50,000/-, under section 68 as unexplained cash credit, under the facts and circumstances of the case.
The learned Authorities below ought to have considered the fact that the amount of Rs.51,50,000/- is received as gift from father of the Appellant, under the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. The learned Authorities below are not justified in making the addition of an amount being Rs.51,50,500/-, under section 68, and the tax calculated as per provisions of section 115BBE of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act, in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax ad determined by the learned Assessing Officer.
The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above.
In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity.”
At the outset of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. No written submission has been submitted by the assessee.
Submission of ld.DR : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of the Assessing Officer(AO) and ld.CIT(A).
Swathi Kewal Nemmaniwar [A] Findings and Analysis : 4. We have heard ld.DR for the Revenue and perused the records. Assessee filed Return of Income for A.Y.2017-18 electronically on 04.01.2018, declaring total income at Rs.31,44,430/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny, accordingly, the AO issued various notices and assessee filed submissions. 4.1 During the assessment proceedings, AO observed that assessee has received gift of Rs.51,50,000/- from Shri Rangineni Laxman Rao on 14.07.2016. Shri Rangineni Laxman Rao is assessee’s father. Assessee had submitted a gift declaration to the AO. AO observed that assessee had not filed a registered gift deed. AO has also observed that Assessee failed to file copy of Return of Income of the donor, computation of income of the donor, copy of bank passbook of the donor, therefore, the AO added Rs.51,50,000/- u/sec.68 of the Act, treating the transaction as non-genuine, AO held that applying the doctrine of human probability, the explanation offered by assessee was not acceptable. However, AO has mentioned that assessee had filed copy of sale deed of property sold by Shri Rangineni Laxman Rao Swathi Kewal Nemmaniwar [A] to explain the source of Rs.51,50,000/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee filed the appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) provided five opportunities, but assessee failed to file any submission. Therefore, ld.CIT(A) discussed the assessment order and confirmed the addition.
4.2 In this case, it is an admitted fact both by the Assessee as well as Revenue that assessee had received Rs.51,50,000/- from her father i.e.ShriRangineni Laxman Rao through banking channel. During the assessment proceedings, Assessee had explained to the AO that her father had sold property. Assessee also filed copy of sale deed of the impugned property sold by her father to explain the source of Rs.51,50,000/-. Assessee had also filed a copy of her bank account. The AO had made addition u/sec.68 of the Act. It has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that assessee has to prove identity of the person, credit worthiness of the person and geniuses of the transaction. In this case, identity is proved, because the donor is her father i.e.ShriRangineni Laxman Rao. The transaction has been done through banking channel. Assessee had submitted copy of sale deed of the property sold by her father to prove the source of the impugned amount. Assessee had filed Swathi Kewal Nemmaniwar [A] the copy of the gift declaration also, though it was unregistered. The AO has made addition u/sec.68 of the Act. The assessee had proved identity, credit-worthiness and genuineness of the transaction, therefore, all the three requirements of the section 68 of the Act is fulfilled. The AO has not brought on record anything to prove that the transaction is not genuine. AO merely stated in concluding paragraph 7.11 that credit-worthiness of the donor has not been proved and genuineness of the transaction has not been proved. However, as discussed above, Assessee had proved credit- worthiness of the donor by filing the copy of sale deed. AO has not doubted the sale deed filed by the Assessee, therefore, source of the amount has been explained. The transaction is through banking channel and impugned amount has been received from her father i.e.Shri Rangineni Laxman Rao. Therefore, the primary onus of proving the genuineness has been completed by Assessee. Thus, Assessee has proved identity, credit-worthiness and genuineness. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.51,50,000/-. Accordingly, Ground No.3, 4 and 5 raised by the assessee are allowed.
Swathi Kewal Nemmaniwar [A] 4.3 Ground No.1, 2, 6, 7 and 8 becomes academic in nature and needs no adjudication, hence dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th August, 2024.