RAMESH JHAVERI (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(3)(3), MUMBAI
In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed as indicated above
ITA 4981/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2016AY 2006-07
Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4981/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Ramesh Jhaveri (Huf), बनधम/ Income Tax Officer, Smruti Building, Range - 21(3)(3), Bandra, Mumbai Vs. 4Th Floor, Plot No.16, Road No.5, Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai – 400 056 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan :Aaahr4425E अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Anuj Kishnadwala प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue By Shri B S Bist सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am This Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai, Dated 04.07.2014 For A.Y. 2006-07 On Following Grounds: “1. The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Income Of Rs.82,39,653/- Being Gift Of India Millennium Deposit Received As Unexplained Credit Under Section 68 Of The I. T. Act, 1961. 2 2. It Is Respectfully Submitted That Proceeds Of India Millennium Deposit Cash Not Be Brought To Tax In The Hands Of Appellant By Invoking Provisions Of Section 56(2)(V) Of The I.T. Act, 1961.” 2. The Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Against The Confirming The Addition Of Rs.82,39,653/- By Ld. Cit(A) By Upholding The Action Of The Ao Of Treating The Gift Of Indian Millennium Deposit (Hereinafter Called As „Imd‟) Bond As Unexplained Credit U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Ground No.2 Is With Regard To Raising The Issue Of India Millennium Deposit Cash Not Be Brought To Tax In The Hands Of Appellant By Invoking Provisions Of Section 56(2)(V) Of The Act.
Section 10(15)(iid)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(v)Section 68
…2.4 In this background, assessee requested to delete addition made by Assessing Officer. To strengthen its contention, ld. Authorized 6 Representative also relied on the decision of ITAT, Agra Bench (Third Member) in case of Avnish Kumar Singh vs. ITO [2010] 126 ITD 145 (Agra)(TM), wherein third Member observed that in the instant case, following facts were not in dispute: (a) the identity of the donor was not in doubt; (b) gift was given by a declaration deed; (c) donor had given an affidavit affirming the making of the gift; (d) there was a confirmation through post of gift per demand draft; (e) affirmation of…
