Ita/67/2015 Of Manish Bansal v. Income Tax Officer, Panchkula

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH ITA No. 67 of 2015Date of decision: 19.8.2015 Manish Bansal ..-.-- Appe Income Tax Officer, ward No.3, Panchkula ..-.-Responde CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON’BLE MR. JUSTICEK RAMENDRA JAIN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported 1n the Digest? Present: Mr. Nitin Kaushal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the respondent. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1,The assessee-appellant has filed this appeal under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act’) against the orderdated 28.8.2014, Annexure A.3 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B’', Chandigarh in ITA No.953/CHD/2011 fothe assessment year 2007-08, claiming following substantial questions oflaw:- “1) Whether the learned authorities below were justified intreating the gift as unexplained income even though the samewas a genuine transaction duly supported by relevantdocuments? 11) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal is justified in upholding the addition of 41,75,000/- received as gift by the appellant from his sisterespecially considering the fact that an amount ofa5,00,000/-also received as gift from the same sister was allowed to bededucted by accepting the same Income Tax Return and bankStatement ° 2 A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversyinvolved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. Assessment was framedon 4.12.2009 under under 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2007-08wherein inter alia amounts of v5 lacs andv1,75,000/- were added asincome which were received as NRI gifts from the appellant's sister. TheAssessing Officer treated the said amounts as unexplained income videorder dated 4.12.2009, Annexure A.1, as they were not duly supported byrelevant documents. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed appeal beforethe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Panchkula. A copy of theincome tax return filed by the donor (appellant's sister) and the bankstatement and certificate were filed as fresh evidence by the appellant. Thesaid documents were accepted by the Assessing Officer in his remand reportdated 9.6.2011. In the light of the said acceptance, the amount ofLT5 lacswas deleted from his income by the CIT(A). However, the amount of41,75,000/- which also formed part of the same income tax return and bankstatement was still considered as unexplained income and added to theincome of the appellant. Thus, the appeal was partly allowed vide orderdated 18.7.2011, Annexure A.2. The appellant filed appeal before theTribunal. Further, an application for placing on record certain additionaldocuments including the gift deed ofa1,75,000/- was filed. The Tribunalvide order dated 28.8.2014, Annexure A.3 partly allowed the appeal and admitted all the additional evidence except the gift deed. The addition ofL1,75,000/- was confirmed. Hence the instant appeal by the assessee-appellant. 3We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4Learned counsel for the assessee-appellant submitted that theapplication tor additional evidence in the form of gift deed was filed beforethe Tribunal which has been erroneously declined. It was argued that theassessee-appellant had established that the gift received from his sister Mrs,Rashi Bansal of |1,75,000/- was genuine. According to the learnedcounsel, the Tribunal had accepted the gift of|<a5 lacs whereas no cogentreasons were given for discarding the gift ofLT1,75,000/-. 5Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submittedthat inspite of opportunity provided to the appellant, the assessee wasunable to give a confirmatory letter or gift deed verifying that the amountwas received by him from his sister. 6 The relevant portion of the order dated 28.8.2014, Annexure A.3 passed by the Tribunal reads thus:- 5Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submittedthat inspite of opportunity provided to the appellant, the assessee wasunable to give a confirmatory letter or gift deed verifying that the amountwas received by him from his sister. 6 The relevant portion of the order dated 28.8.2014, Annexure A.3 passed by the Tribunal reads thus:- “20. Ground No.7. After hearing both the parties we find thatthere was another entry of=a1,75,000/- for which no detailswere filed and Assessing Officer made addition on account ofthe same. On appeal before CIT(A), it was stated that thisamount was received from the sister of the assessee as gift.However, learned CIT(A) rejected the explanation because noconfirmation was filed. 21. Before us learned counsel for the assessee submitted thatCIT(A) has already accepted another gift of=a5 lacs from thesister then he should have accepted this gift also. 22. On the other hand, learned DR supported the order ofAssessing Officer and CIT(A). 23. After considering the rival submissions we do not find anyforce in the submissions of learned counsel for the assessee|First of all, we have already rejected the admission ofadditional evidence in the form of gift deed in respect of thisgift deed because learned counsel could not give any reasonwhy the same was not produced before Assessing Officer orCIT(A). Secondly, wherever the assessee has filed propercertificate, learned CIT(A) has already deleted the additionand if no confirmation is available for a particular gift, thenSame cannot be allowed simply because the other gifts havebeen accepted. Therefore, we uphold the order of learned CIT(A) in this respect and confirm the addition ofTL1,75,000/-.”force in the submissions of learned counsel for the assessee|First of all, we have already rejected the admission ofadditional evidence in the form of gift deed in respect of thisgift deed because learned counsel could not give any reasonwhy the same was not produced before Assessing Officer orCIT(A). Secondly, wherever the assessee has filed propercertificate, learned CIT(A) has already deleted the additionand if no confirmation is available for a particular gift, thenSame cannot be allowed simply because the other gifts havebeen accepted. Therefore, we uphold the order of learned CIT(A) in this respect and confirm the addition ofTL1,75,000/-.” TiA perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that nocogent and convincing reasons have been given by the Tribunal for notaccepting the additional evidence in the form of gift deed and confirmingthe addition of=a1,75,000/-. Consequently, the matter is remanded back tothe Tribunal for deciding it afresh in accordance with law after hearinglearned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the additionalevidence produced by the assessee-appellant before the Tribunal. S_ Appeal stands disposed of. (Ajay Kumar Mittal)Judge August 10, 2015<;"< (Ramendra Jain)Judge