1997 (2) TMI 165
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T,Inv. CircleI. There was sufficient change within the staff of Dy. CIT,Spl.Range,Agra. Shri A. Chatterjee, Dy. CIT(A) was transferred toDelhiand the new Dy. CIT joined in the month of May. The Inspector who was looking after the batch of orders was relieved from the charge. On account of these reasons, the present appeal escaped attention of the Dy. CIT,Spl.Rangeas the same was transferred to Dy. CIT, Range I,Agra. There is delay of 18 days which may kindly be condoned. The assessee filed objection against the condonation application. However, at the time of argument, the matter of condonation of delay was not seriously agitated. Having heard both the parties, we find that the delay in filing the appeals is fully explained and there is reasonable cause for filing the appeals late by 18 days. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeals is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. The grievance of Revenue in its appeal is that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 50,000 ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the loan to the satisfaction of AO and ignoring the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Nanak Chand Laxm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e account of M/s Goyal Agencies that as on1st Jan., 1987, the balance was Rs. 1,053. On30th Jan., 1987, a sum of Rs. 46,620 was deposited in cash. For the source of the deposit of Rs. 46,620, there is no explanation of the creditor though subsequently he had given explanation in his statement that on 31st Jan., 1987 he has withdrawn Rs. 46,000 by a cheque and after added the savings to his withdrawn amount of Rs. 46,000, he made a cash deposit of Rs. 50,000 on 19th Feb., 1987. From there, he has made a deposit of Rs. 50,000 after withdrawal from his account. However, the fact remains that the assessee could not give any explanation about deposit of Rs. 46,620 as on30th Jan., 1987. Therefore, the AO was right in holding that he has merely a name lender and he has given no amount for deposit as a loan. Reliance was placed on the decision of Nanak Chand Laxman Das vs. CIT and CIT vs. SC. Gupta (1975) 100 ITR 244 (All). It is also pointed out that the creditor in his statement has stated that he has collected money solely. As against this, the learned assessee's counsel submitted that the AO has ignored the fact that creditor was running an old bank account even prior to the date of se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terial available on record. In this case, the identity of the creditor is not in dispute. The Department disposed the genuineness of the transaction and the capacity of the creditor. So far as the capacity of the creditor is concerned, the creditor appeared before the AO. He had given statement about source of income as commission from various firms. Beside this, he has also placed a copy of the account showing deposit and withdrawals which is also enumerated in the order of the CIT(A). A perusal of the statement with this account would go to show that the creditor has sufficient source to make deposit with the assessee. It is also borne out from his statement as well as from the confirmatory letter filed that it is being assessed for tax by D Ward, Agra under GIR No. 825/D, ITO, Agra. In case there is any thing about the source of deposit made with the assessee, he could have been caught there itself and action would have been taken against him in his individual case. However, we find that no action has been taken against the creditor. Therefore, from the evidence of record, it is proved that the amount deposited with the assessee was returned back by a bank draft alongwith the in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess of the deposit. It was explained that this sum was received by way of gift from Mohan Lal Aggarwal. In order to prove the genuineness of the gift, the assessee filed confirmatory letter and affidavit from Sh. Mohan Lal acknowledging the gift in which he has also given bank account from where the amount was given to the assessee. It was also shown that he has a regular source of income from preparing account books and from interest. However, the AO was not satisfied with this explanation. Therefore, he held that the gift is not genuine on the following grounds: (1) The donor could not have purchased the gifted amount standing regular source of income. There was a credit balance of Rs. 634 in donor's account on28th July, 1986and thereafter there was small credits in the account and then on8th Jan., 1987, Rs. 21,000 was deposited in cash. Thus it was concluded that it was only a managed gift and not a genuine one because the donor was not in a position to give his own money and on the date of gift as he had no sufficient funds to give this amount. 5. Aggrieved by that order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) confirmed the addition observing as under: "I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ission and have gone through the material available on record. In this case we find that the assessee had shown a gift from Sh. Mohan Lal Agarwal. The gift was received by account payee cross cheque drawn on his S.B. account No. 22107 in Canara Bank,Agra. The assessee had filed copy of gift-tax, dt.29th Feb., 1988showing payment of gift. He has filed a confirmatory letter and affidavit. On assessee's instance the donor was examined under s. 131. From his statement it is clear that he has confirmed making of gift in favour of assessee. In his statement he has also mentioned that he had regular source of income from preparing account books and from interest. The gifted amount was deposited in the S.B. account. All these evidence on record show that the burden which lay upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of the gift is discharged. Now the burden shifts on the Department to show material that the gift made was bogus and ingenuine. No material had been brought on record to prove this except raising suspicion that the donor has no permanent source of income. The suspicion howsoever strong it may be cannot be the basis of rejection of assessee's claim unless it is supported by mat....