Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: VAT RATES :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: VAT Audit :: form 3cd :: TDS :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: empanelment :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: cpt :: due date for vat payment
 
 
From the Courts »
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21
 CHAUDHARY SKIN TRADING COMPANY Vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 Deputy Director Of Income Tax Vs. Virage Logic International
 Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 International Taxation Vs. Virage Logic International India
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 Vs. Moderate Leasing And Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.
 ITO vs. Vikram A. Pradhan (ITAT Mumbai)

Shri Jignesh V. Chauhan, Room No.28, Ground Floor, Bhim Shroff Chawl, 139/A Bhuleshwar Road, Near Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai 400 002 Vs. ITO 14(2)(4), 3rd Floor, Room No.305, Earnest House, Near Hoechest House, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021
December, 08th 2015
                 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
                        MUMBAI BENCH "J", MUMBAI

           BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
                SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                  ITA No.357/M/2013
                               Assessment Year: 2009-10

         Shri Jignesh V. Chauhan,             ITO 14(2)(4),
         Room No.28, Ground Floor,            3rd Floor, Room No.305,
         Bhim Shroff Chawl,                   Earnest House,
                                          Vs.
         139/A Bhuleshwar Road,               Near Hoechest House,
         Near Kalbadevi Road,                 Nariman Point,
         Mumbai ­ 400 002                     Mumbai - 400021
         PAN: AGSPC5171E
               (Appellant)                        (Respondent)

       Present for:
       Assessee by                 : Shri K. Gopal, A.R.
       Revenue by                  : Shri Akhilendra P. Yadav, D.R.

       Date of Hearing             : 06.08.2015
       Date of Pronouncement       : 04.12.2015

                                     ORDER


Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

       The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order
dated 03.10.2012 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter
referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2009-10.

2.     The assessee in this case has agitated the confirmation of addition of
Rs.15,21,000/- as undisclosed income under section 69A of the Income Tax
Act.
       The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer (hereinafter
referred to as the AO) had received information that the assessee had deposited
cash of Rs.15,21,000/- in his saving bank account. On being asked to explain
the source of the above amounts, the assessee submitted to the AO that he had
received gifts out of natural love and affection from relatives i.e. from
                                         2                              ITA No.357/M/2013
                                                                    Shri Jignesh V. Chauhan





father, wife and three brothers amounting to Rs.12,86,000/- and the remaining
amount     of   Rs.2,35,000/-     was    deposited     out   of    his    own         on
capital/savings/income of the year. The AO observed that all the alleged gifts
were in cash and the donors had not sufficient capacity to give gifts to the
assessee. He therefore rejected the explanation given by the assessee and
added the above amount of Rs.15,21,000/- as unexplained income of the
assessee under section 69A of the Act.

      The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions so made by the AO. The
assessee has, thus, come in appeal before us.

3.    We have heard the rival contentions and have also gone through the
records. It is an admitted fact on the file that all the gifts have been received by
the assessee from his close relatives i.e. father, wife and three brothers. The
gifts are of small amount ranging from Rs.1.95 lakhs to 2.92 lakhs. The
assessee has produced on file the copy of income returns of the donors to show
that the donors were earning income and it cannot be said that they had no
capacity to give gifts of the above stated amounts. The donors have confirmed
that they have gifted the above stated amounts to the assessee. The AO has not
called upon the donors to ask for their source of income. He has merely
presumed that the donors have not sufficient capacity to give the gifts to the
assessee. However, this fact also cannot be ignored that the gifts are of the
small amount ranging from Rs.1.95 lakhs to 2.92 lakhs.            The donors are
assessable to income tax. They have filed the confirmations regarding giving
the gifts to the assessee. The amount of Rs.2.35 thousand which the assessee
has shown as out of his own capital/savings and income for the year under
consideration is also nominal. Under such circumstances, we do not find any
justification on the part of lower authorities in disbelieving the explanation
submitted by the assessee without examining and enquiring or calling upon the
                                              3                             ITA No.357/M/2013
                                                                        Shri Jignesh V. Chauhan





donors. The additions therefore made in this of the assessee are not sustainable
in the eyes of law and the same are accordingly ordered to be deleted.

4.       In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed.



                  Order pronounced in the open court on 04.12.2015.



        Sd/-                                                     Sd/-
    (G.S. Pannu)                                            (Sanjay Garg)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                       JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated: 04.12.2015.
* Kishore, Sr. P.S.

Copy to: The Appellant
        The Respondent
        The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
        The CIT (A) Concerned, Mumbai
        The DR Concerned Bench
//True Copy//                             [




                                                  By Order



                                 Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Our Portfolio

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions