SH. HARJIT SINGH CHADHA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2094/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 October 2015AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that sufficient opportunity was not provided to produce the donor's bank statement and establish fund flow. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee received a gift of Rs. 2,96,590/- from his father-in-law. The Assessing Officer made an addition in respect of this gift. The CIT(A) upheld the addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made on account of gift received was justified, and whether the assessee was provided with sufficient opportunity to substantiate the claim with documentary evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(vi)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

For Appellant: CA & Ms

Date of Hearing : 26-10--2015 Date of Order : 26-10-2015

O R D E R This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXIII, New Delhi dated 27.12.2013 pertaining to assessment year 2009-10.

2. The grounds of appeal read as under:-

1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law while upholding the addition made by the AO in respect of gift received by assessee from his father in law of Rs. 2,96,590/- by ignoring the submissions of the assessee and provisions of section 56(2)(vi) of the Income

Tax Act, 1961 and as such the addition of Rs. 2,96,590/- may please be deleted.

2.

That the assessee crave to add, alter, delete, modify or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing.

3.

The facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, therefore, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience.

4.

At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the Assessee stated that the Revenue has not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee for producing the Bank Statement of the donor establishing Fund Flow through the Banking channel. He further stated that the assessee is having all documentary evidences for substantiating his claim before the Revenue Authorities and requested for one more opportunity to substantiate the claim of the assessee.

5.

Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and stated that sufficient opportunity was provided by them to the assessee.

6.

I have heard both the parties and perused the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities alongwith relevant records available with the Appeal filed. I find considerable cogency in the submissions of the assessee that Revenue has not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee for producing the Bank Statement of the donor establishing Fund Flow through the Banking channel. I also find that now the assessee is having all documentary evidences for substantiating his claim before the Revenue Authorities and hence, his request for seeking one more opportunity to substantiate the claim of the assessee before the Assessing Officer seems to be genuine. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the same afresh, after considering all the documents viz. Bank Statement of the Donor and Fund Flow through Banking Channel etc. The Assesee is also directed to fully cooperate with the AO and produced all the documents before the AO to substantiate his claim. Needless to add that the assessee should be given adequate opportunity of being heard.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 26/10/2015.

More judgments on Section 56(2)(vi)

All 49 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(vi) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →