UMESH BHIMRAO CHIPRIKAR,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, , KOLHAPUR

Assessment Year: 2013-14 Umesh Bhimrao Chiprikar, Vs The Income Tax Officer, Shanti Dental Hospital, Ward-1, Ichalkaranji. harshwardhan Complea, Kolhapur Road, A/p.Jaysingpur, Jaysingpur – 416101. Maharashtra. PAN: AFKPC9558C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Umeshkumar M. Mali – AR Revenue by Shari Sandeep P Sathe – JCIT(DR) Date of hearing 21/08/2024 Date of pronouncement 23/08/2024 आदेश/ ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. AO erred in Going beyond Reasons for which assessment got reopened and made addition. 1.1) Assessee individual was engaged in the profession as Doctor, case was reopened to verify cash deposit in saving Bank account No. 1504 maintained in Youth Development co operative bank Ltd Kolhapur. In the course of assessment the subject matter of cash deposition got clarified . There is no addition on the subject matter for which case got reopened. During the course of assessment AO travelled beyond the subject for which assessment was reopened and asked about explanation of gift received by cheque by assessee from his father. Prayer The Assessee prays that learned AO made an addition on the issue which was not the issue for which assessment got reopened, hence The order passed needs to be quashed. 2) Ground No.2 On On the facts and circumstances of the case The learned AO erred in making addition of Rs. 216000/- U/s 69A without considering genuine sources submitted by assesse. this addition has been made merely on the basis of imagination and without giving any legal reason for the same 2.1) During the course of assessment Assessee has produced Bank statement of his father and explained about every single Rupees for gift received by him from his father. His father given gift out of Fixed deposit maturity proceeds only. But AO has not considered this fact. Rather he made his imagination and made addition U/s 69A Prayer- The Assessee prays that learned AO made an addition of Rs.2,16,000/- U/s 69A this addition needs to be quashed.” Brief facts of the Case : 2. In this case, assessee filed Return of Income u/sec.139 of the Act declaring total income at Rs.3,89,238/-. The Assessing Officer(AO) received information that assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.12,75,300/- in his Savings Bank Account No.1504 during F.Y.2012-13. Therefore, AO has mentioned in the assessment order that these cash deposits were not commensurate with the Return of Income filed by the assessee and hence notice u/sec.148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021. Assessee in compliance to notice u/sec.148, filed Return of Income. Thereafter, AO issued notice u/sec.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. Assessee filed submission in response to the notices. In the assessment order, AO has not made any addition with reference to the cash deposits of Rs.12,75,300/-. However, during the assessment proceedings, AO observed that assessee has received Rs.2,16,000/- from his father. AO asked Assessee to explain the deposit of Rs.2,16,000/-. The assessee explained that his father has given him gift of Rs.2,16,000/-. Assessee explained that said gift of Rs.2,16,000/- was through banking channel. Assessee further explained that his father has given Rs.2,16,000/- from his bank account on maturity of the fixed deposits. Assessee filed copy of the Bank Statement of his father. However, AO noted that on 10.04.2012, assessee’s father Bhimrao had deposited Rs.49,000/- on four times. Therefore, AO held that gift is not genuine and made an addition u/sec.69A of the Act of Rs.2,16,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition.

2.1 Aggrieved by the same, assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal.

Submission of ld.AR : 3. The ld.AR for the Assessee filed written submission. Ld.AR submitted that no addition has been made on the ground on which notice u/sec.148 was issued. Therefore, ld.AR relied on various case laws to plead that assessment is bad in law.

3.1 The ld.AR took us through the copy of the assessee’s father’s bank account maintained with S.S.L.SHRIPAL ALASE(KAKA) KURUNDWAD URBAN CO-OP BANK LTD., Branch- Jaysingpur. He explained that on 09.04.2012, Fixed Deposits were matured and accordingly, credited to assessee’s father’s account. Assessee’s father withdrew Rs.1,97,000/- on 10.04.2012 in cash from the said bank account. And immediately on 10.04.2012, he deposited Rs.1,96,000/- in the bank account maintained with YOUTH DEVELOPMENT CO-OP. BANK LTD., KOLHAPUR, JAYSINGPUR BRANCH. From the said YOUTH DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, Assessee’s father issued a cheque of Rs.2,16,000/- to the assessee. Ld.AR further explained that the cash was withdrawn from “S.S.L.SHRIPAL ALASE(KAKA) KURUNDWAD URBAN CO- OP BANK LTD., Branch-Jaysingpur” because Assessee’s father was not provided cheque book of S.S.L.SHRIPAL ALASE(KAKA) KURUNDWAD URBAN CO-OP BANK LTD., Branch-Jaysingpur. Therefore, Assessee’s withdrew cash and deposited in YOUTH DEVELOPMENT CO-OP. BANK LTD., KOLHAPUR, Jaysingpur Branch in his individual Savings Account No.------1648. Thus, the source of deposit was properly explained by Assessee.

Submission of ld.DR : 5. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of AO and ld.CIT(A).

Findings &Analysis :

6.1 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., [2011] 331 ITR 236(Bom) has held as under: “However, if after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepted the contention of the assessee and holds that the income which he has initially formed a reason to believe had escaped assessment, has as a matter of fact not escaped assessment, it is not open to him independently to assess some other income. If he intends to do so, a fresh notice under section 148 would be necessary, the legality of which would be tested in the event of a challenge by the assessee.”

6.2 Thus, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that if no addition has been made on account of the income alleged to have been escaped assessment in the reasons recorded, then it is not open for AO to independently assess some other income. In this case, AO had independently tried to assess Rs.2,16,000/- which was outside the initial reasons. Therefore, respectfully following the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court(supra), it is held that AO had no jurisdiction to add Rs.2,16,000/- independently. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.2,16,000/-.

6.3 Even otherwise, the addition of Rs.2,16,000/- is not maintainable for following reasons. In this case, assessee had received Rs.2,16,000/- by cheque from Assessee’s father’s bank account. Assessee had submitted copies of his father’s bank account. We have perused the assessee’s father bank account in S.S.L.SHRIPAL ALASE(KAKA) KURUNDWAD URBAN CO- OP BANK LTD., wherein following Fixed Deposits have been credited on 09.04.2012.

6.4 Then, assessee’s father had withdrawn Rs.1,97,000/- in cash from the said account which is clearly seen from the Bank Statement. Similarly, it is observed that on 10.04.2012 itself, assessee’s father deposited cash in the Saving Bank Account maintained with YOUTH DEVELOPMENT CO-OP. BANK LTD., Kolhapur. The scanned copy of Assessee’s father bank account maintained with YOUTH DEVELOPMENT CO-OP.

BANK LTD., Kolhapur is as under :

Date TC Particulars Chq No Ref Date Debit Credit Balance 01/04/2012 Opening Balance 67541.00 67541.00 Cr 04/04/2012 CP TO CASH 04/04/2012 31000.00 36541.00 Cr 09/04/2012 TR 09/04/2012 BY TRF :- 11391.00 47932.00 Cr 60/18/9889 09/04/2012 TR 09/04/2012 BY TRF:- 6188.00 54120.00 Cr 60/18/10066 09/04/2012 TR 09/04/2012 BY TRF:- 15099.00 69219.00 Cr 60/18/10068 10/04/2012 CR BY CASH 10/04/2012 49000.00 118219.00 Cr 10/04/2012 CR BY CASH 10/04/2012 49000.00 167219.00 Cr 10/04/2012 CR BY CASH 10/04/2012 49000.00 216219.00 Cr 10/04/2012 49000.00 10/04/2012 CR BY CASH 265219.00 Cr 14/04/2012 CP TO SELF 14/04/2012 68000.00 197219.00 Cr 20/07/2012 TR TO UMESH B 566011 19/07/2012 216000.00 18781.00 Dr CHIPRIKAR 20/07/2012 TR BY TRF:- 20/07/2012 68643.00 49862.00 Cr 60/2/6357 6.5 Thus, it is observed that assessee’s father had issued a cheque no.566011 in the name of assessee of Rs.2,16,000/-. The source of this Rs.2,16,000/- is well explained as maturity amount received from maturity of Fixed Deposits. Therefore, source of Rs.2,16,000/- stands explained. Hence, assessee has fulfilled his primary onus of proving identity, genuineness and credit- worthiness. Assessing Officer has not brought on record any document to negate the Assessee’s submission. Any sum of money received from a Relative(defined in the section) as gift is not taxable as per section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. In this case, Assessee has received Rs.2,16,000/- by cheque as gift from his father. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that addition of Rs.2,16,000/- is not sustainable. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the Rs.2,16,000/-. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.

Sd/- Sd/- (VIJNAY BHAMORE) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 23rd August, 2024/ SGR* आदेशक��ितिलिपअ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned.