Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI JASON P. BOAZ & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAINSmt. Pinky Alok Shrivastav,
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(Appeals)-II, Thane dated 19/12/2012 for the assessment year 2004- 05. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:-
“1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law in sustaining addition of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of Gift received. 2.The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.1,00,000/- towards estimated expenditure u/s. 69C on Gift received from the donor. 3. The appellant submits that the above grounds of appeal are alternative, independent and without prejudice to one another.
(Assessment Year : 2004-05) 4. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal
.”
2. This appeal was fixed for hearing on many occasions, but no one was even present for assessee on any of the specified dates. Even issue of notice by RPAD at the given address on atleast three occasions has not evoked any response from the assessee. Today, i.e. 20/01/2016 when the case was called for hearing, none was present for the assessee, but the Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue was present for Revenue. In the above factual circumstances, it appears from the assessee’s conduct that she is not serious about pursuing this appeal and we, therefore, proceed to dispose off this appeal with the help of the Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue and the material on record.
We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue at length in the matter, placing strongly reliance on the findings in the impugned orders of the authorities below. We have also perused and carefully considered the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and material on record.
The finding of the Ld.CIT(A) at paras 4 to 4.2 of the impugned order is extracted hereunder:-
I have carefully considered the facts on record and submission of the . . appellant. I find that the appellant is a house wife and she has been building capital through various gifts including -NRI gifts. She has shown gifts of Rs. 9,70,047/- in A.Y. 2002-:03 and gifts of Rs. 15,00,000/- in A.Y. 2003-04. It goes without saying that in the world of materialism nobody gifts a single penny to anybody without consideration. In this background, if contention of the appellant as well as the documentary evidences furnished are examined, then· the claim of so-called gifts reveals a concocted story. On perusal of the details furnished in the case of Shri Sandeep Doshi, donor, I find that the declaration of gift has been made on Stamp Paper on 09/01/2004. However,
(Assessment Year : 2004-05) the date of gift has been stated to be 12/01/2004 in the declaration. In contrast, the gift is stated to be on 29/12/2003 in the written submission reproduced above. In the declaration of gift, no relation with the donee has been stated by the donor. Further, there is no occasion for giving the gift of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the appellant. The donor at present is NRE, but he originally belongs to Dungarpur, Rajasthan. On examination of .bank account of the donor, it is noticed that there are only few entries In the Bank account. The cash has been deposited on 08/12/2003, 09/12/2003 and then there is a transfer entry leaving a nominal balance. Immediately before giving a gift to the appellant, the donor has deposited a cheque of Kuwaiti Dinar of 3339 on 24/12/2003. On credit of this cheque, 3,000 Kuwait Dinars have been withdrawn on 29/12/2003 claimed to have been utilized for giving a gift gift to the appellant. Thereafter, the balance in the Bank account remained nominal amount. The source of cash deposits as well as credits immediately before the gift, have not been explained by the appellant. Moreover, no other evidence to establish the earnings of the donor and his financial wellbeing, have been furnished either during the course of assessment' proceedings or during the appellate proceedings.
4.1 Similarly, on examination of the details furnished in respect of other donor, Shri. Maheshkurnar N.Patel, it is noticed that the Stamp Paper has been purchased on 06/02/2004 and the gift is stated to be given on 16/02/2004. In the declaration of gift, neither any occasion nor any relation with the donee has been stated. The gift has been made through a demand draft purchased from NRE . Saving Bank A/c. with the Bank of Baroda. On perusal of the bank account, it is noticed that from 01/01/2002 to 10/01/2004, there was no credit except for interest income of about Rs.4,500/- per annum. However, immediately before the gift of about Rs. 4,500/- per annum. However, immediately before the gift of Rs.5,00,000/- on 16/02/2004, the donor has deposited two amounts of Rs.1,78,379/- and Rs.2,67,279/-. The sources of these two credit entries in the bank account immediately before the gift of Rs.5,00,000/- to the appellant have neither been explained before the A.O nor before me. The appellant has not furnished any other evidence to establish the sources of income and financial well being of the donor.
4.2 Although both the donors have stated in the declaration of gifts that the gift has been given out of natural love and affection, but they have not mentioned anything as to how the natural love and affection has been developed with the done particularly when they are not related one. Nothing has been mentioned as to whether the donors and done have ever met each other. As already mentioned, the frequent receipt of the gifts from unrelated person of huge money by the appellant is against all human probabilities. Since gifts are not on any occasion and there is no proof about the natural love and affection with the donors, the legal constituents of valid gifts are not also proved in the case of appellant. The appellant, during the course of examination u/s.131 could not given addresses, telephone No., business (Assessment Year : 2004-05) details, details of meetings or talks on telephone etc. With the donors. Since the donors and done have never met, the theory of “ Rakhi Brothers” had been proved to be false. All the evidences produced by the appellant only indicate that the same have been created by the appellant only to give a colour of gifts to the unaccounted money. The facts and circumstances also indicate that the appellant must have been given the amounts in cash to the donors for their expenses whenever they visit India in lieu of so-called gifts. Thus, in view of totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the discussion made above, I am of the considered view that the so-called gifts are not genuine gifts and the appellant has grossly failed to establish the relation of “Rakhi Brothers” and natural love & affection and financial capacity of the donors and hence, I hold that the A.O has rightly treated the fits of Rs.10,00,000/- as unexplained cash credits u/s.
The addition so made is accordingly confirmed. Since the appellant has acquired the gifts in order to give colour genuineness to her unaccounted money, she must have also incurred some amount of expenses for arranging documentary evidence as also the gifts. Thus, the expenditure estimated by A.O at Rs.1,10,000/- on this account and added u/s. 69C is also upheld.”
We find from details on record and the Ld. Departmental Representative’s submissions that the assessee has not been able to advance any evidence to controvert the adverse findings of the Ld. CIT(A)(supra) in respect of the assessee’s claim of receipt of gifts of Rs.10 lakhs, holding them to be unexplained cash credit and also the unexplained expenditure of Rs.1 lakh incurred in this regard. We, consequently dismiss the grounds of S.No.1 to 4 raised by the assessee in this appeal.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2004-05 is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22/01/2016