SH. SANJEEV GUPTA,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 260/CHANDI/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 July 2018AY 2011-123 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the cash withdrawals from the donor's bank account, along with the affidavit and confirmation of the gift, sufficiently proved the source of the deposits. The addition made by the AO was deleted.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 4,06,000/- to the assessee's income on account of unexplained cash deposits in his bank account. The assessee claimed these deposits were gifts from his father-in-law.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits in the assessee's bank account were sufficiently explained as gifts, despite the donor not appearing before the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH’SMD’, CHANDIGARH

Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri. Amarjit Kamboj
For Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar
Hearing: 13/06/2018Pronounced: 10/07/2018

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH’SMD’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.260/Chd/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12

Sh. Sanjay Gupta Vs. The Asst. CIT C/o Dass Khanna & Co. Circle-1 B-XX-2515, Pakhowal Road Ludhiana Gurdev Nagar, Ludhiana PAN No. AEHPG3169F

(Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri. Amarjit Kamboj Respondent By : Shri. Manoj Kumar

Date of hearing : 13/06/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 10/07/2018

ORDER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Ludhiana dated 14/12/2017 pertaining to Assessment Year 2011- 12. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A)-2, Ludhiana has erred in law and on facts of the case:- a) By arbitrarily and wrongly sustained the addition of Rs. 4,06,000/- without appreciating the documents submitted before the Ld. Assessing Officer during remand proceedings to justify the source of cash deposits in the bank account. 2. The above said order is bad in law and contrary to the facts of case. 3. It is therefore prayed that the appeal may please be accepted and such relief may kindly be allowed which may be deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

The assessee has filed revised grounds of appeal on 13/06/2018 which are as under:

1(a) By arbitrarily and wrongly sustained the addition of Rs. 4,06,000/- as the Ld. A.O. was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the assessee, being a salaried employer, admittedly did not maintain any books of account. 1(b) By arbitrarily and wrongly sustained the addition of Rs. 4,06,000/- made under section 68 without appreciating the documents submitted before the Ld. Assessing Officer during remand proceedings to justify the source of cash deposits in the bank account.

The revised grounds have been admitted keeping in view the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Vs. CIT (229 ITR 383)

3.

The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 26.09.2011 declaring income of Rs. 10,49,730/-. During the assessment the Assessing Officer has made the addition of Rs. 4,06,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the saving bank account of the assessee maintained by him in the State Bank of India to the returned income of the assessee.

4.

The assessee has challenged the action of the Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.4,06,000/- in this case on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee maintained by him with State Bank of India. The main reason for making the impugned addition was that the assessee has not furnished any explanation with regard to the source of cash deposits in his saving bank account maintained by him with State Bank of India although he has been specifically asked to explain the source of cash deposits in his saving bank account. The aforesaid addition has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the grounds that the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings has given Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings has given ample opportunity to the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits but he failed to do that. Ld. CIT(A) held that the genuineness of gift cannot be said to be proved as the Father in law of the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer.

5.

Before us, during the hearing the Ld. AR argued based on the documents filed before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is an employee of a private limited company and received amounts varying from Rs. 90,000/- to Rs. 73,000/- from the period 06/12/2010 to 04/01/2011 as a gift from his Father in law Shri. Charan Das. Affidavit dt. 14/01/2017 was also filed confirming the said gift. The donor has also submitted the copy of bank account of his bank account (Shri Charan Das) with Syndicate Bank Account Number 76402010012541 where from the said amounts have been withdrawn for giving such gift to the assessee. Confirmation of the gift has also been submitted. The Assessing Officer has also called information from Syndicate Bank vide letter dt. 18/08/2017. It was argued that the donor Shri Charan Das could not be produced because he stays at Jammu and is a senior citizen and not keeping well. Since the assessee at the time staying at Jaipur the donor could not be present physically at Ludhiana owing

to the distance, time and health. However all the documentary evidences alongwith the sources have been submitted before the Assessing Officer.

6.

Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and argued that the genuineness of the gift cannot be said to be proved as the Father in Law of the Assessee who is the donor of the gift did not appear before the Assessing Officer and it is an afterthought of the assessee to show these cash deposits as gifts.

7.

We have heard the Ld. Representatives of both the parties.

8.

We find that the cash withdrawals in the account of the donor duly proved the source of the gift. The affidavit and confirmation have been filed before the Assessing Officer. The matter has been independently got verified from the Syndicate Bank by the authorities. The donor is the father in law of the assessee thus it can be said that the deposits in the assessee’s account have been sufficiently proved regarding their sources. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts, we are unable to accept with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition on the sole ground that the genuineness of the gift cannot be said to be proved as Father in law of the Assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer disregarding the evidences put before and hereby order that the addition be deleted.

9.

As a result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court.

Sd/- Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated : 10/07/2018 AG

Copy to:

1.

The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) The DR 5.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →