Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD
आदेश / ORDER
PER RAVISH SOOD, JM
The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals)-I, Raipur dated 01.07.2019, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O u/s.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 06.01.2016 for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.9,56,269/- made by ld. AO on account of unexplained money.
2. The appellant craves leave, to add, urge, alter, modify or withdraw any grounds before or at the time of hearing.”
2. Controversy involved in the present appeal lies in a narrow compass, i.e., sustainability of the addition of Rs.9,56,269/- (out of addition of Rs.13,56,269/-) made by the A.O.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the assessee during the year under consideration had purchased land at Tatibandh, Raipur for Rs.16,05,669/-. On being queried, it was the claim of the assessee that the investment towards purchase of the aforesaid property was sourced out of viz. (i) cash gift of Rs.6 lac received from Smt. Sarla Luliya (mother of the assessee); (ii) cash gift of Rs.4 lac from Shri Nandlal Luliya (father of the assessee); and (iii) balance investment of Rs.6,05,669/- was made out of available cash and bank balances. As the assessee despite sufficient opportunities failed to substantiate the authenticity of the gift transactions by placing on record the requisite details/documents, viz. addresses of the donors, copies of their income tax returns, capital account and balance sheets, therefore, the A.O holding a conviction that the assessee had failed to substantiate both the financial creditworthiness of the donors and the genuineness of the gift transaction as well as the occasion for receiving the respective gifts, thus, rejected his aforesaid claim and held the investment of Rs.10 lac to have been sourced by him out of his unexplained money. Apropos, the claim of the assessee that the balance investment of Rs.6,05,669/- was made out of cash in hand and bank balance as were available with him at the relevant point of time, it was observed by the A.O that availability of cash was verifiable only to the extent of Rs.2,49,400/-. Accordingly, the A.O held the balance investment of Rs.3,56,269/- as having been sourced from the unexplained money of the assessee. On the basis of his aforesaid deliberations the A.O made an addition of Rs.13,56,269/- qua the investment made by the assessee towards purchase of property under consideration.
4. On appeal, the CIT(Appeal) though accepted the claim of the assessee that he had received genuine gift of Rs.4 lac from his father, viz. Shri Nandalal Luliya, but considering the limited financial means of Smt. Sarla Luliya (supra), he upheld the view taken by the A.O that the claim of the assessee of having received any cash gift from her was merely an eye wash. Apropos, the balance addition of Rs.3,56,269/-(supra) made by the A.O, the CIT(Appeals) concured with the view taken by the A.O and upheld the same.
The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before me.
I have heard the ld. authorized representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record.
Apropos the declining of the assessee’s claim of having received cash gift of Rs.6 lacs from his mother, viz. Smt. Sarla Luliya, I am of the considered view that as observed by the lower authorities, and, rightly so, as the assessee had failed to substantiate the creditworthiness of the alleged donor, therefore, his claim of having received cash gift from her did not merit acceptance. I, say so, for the reason that though the assessee in his attempt to substantiate his claim of having received genuine gift from his mother had placed on record the copy of the gift deed, Page 11 & 12 of APB, but a bare perusal of her income-tax return for the year under consideration wherein she had disclosed an income of only Rs.2.76 lacs does not inspire any confidence as regards the veracity of the said claim of the assessee. Apart from that nothing is either discernible from the record nor brought to our notice which would substantiate the authenticity of the impugned gift transactions in question. Accordingly, on the basis of my aforesaid observations, I uphold the view taken by the lower authorities who had rightly rejected the assessee’s claim and held the investment to the extent of Rs.6 lac as having been sourced out of his unexplained money for the year under consideration.
Adverting to the grievance of the assessee that both the lower authorities had erred in rejecting his claim that the investment of Rs.3,56,269/- (out of Rs.6,05,699/-) towards purchase of land under consideration was made out of cash and bank balance available with him at the relevant point of time, I do not find any substance in the same. Although the assessee had claimed that investment of Rs.3,56,269/- (supra) was sourced out of the cash in hand that was available with him at the relevant point of time, but except for raising such hollow claim he had not placed on record any irrefutable material which would substantiate the same. In so far the cash book for the year under consideration that had been pressed into service by the Ld. AR, the same in my considered view had been compiled by him only in an attempt to explain the investment in question and there is nothing on record which would inspire any confidence as regards the authenticity of the same. Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the lower authorities I uphold the addition of Rs.3,56,269/- sustained by the CIT(Appeals). Thus, the Ground of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid observations.
Ground of appeal No.2 being general in nature is dismissed as not pressed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid observations.