TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 504
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... therefore the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) should have held the reassessment is illegal and liable to be quashed. (iii) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in law in upholding the validity of service of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. (iv) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in law in summarily dismissing the objections of the appellant on the validity of the reasons to reopen. (v) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of the gift of Rs. 3,50,000/- received by the appellant. (vi) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in falling to appreciate the fact that no opportunity to cross examine the deonar was provided before making the addition and the principle of natural justice has not been followed and he ought to have quashed the order deserves the order of the Assessing Officer. (vii) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in not giving the due weight to the explanation filed by the appellant before Assessing Officer and he should have held the assessment order deserves to be quashed. (viii) That the Ld. Commissioner of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh Notice Server of the department. On the office copy of this notice there appears a number 1754 dated 31.5.2001. The notice was dispatched by post also vide postal receipt no. 2653 dated 31.5.2001 which has also been pasted on the dispatch register. In light of the above, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) observed that the ground on jurisdiction is not sustainable. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) also noted that assessee has not brought anything on record to prove that the notice sent by the department by post was not received by it and neither has it brought anything to prove that Sh. Dilbag Singh was not its own person. When the assessee was confronted that the above factual finding, the assessee's counsel did not press this ground before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A). I find that the finding of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) clearly indicate that there was proper service of notice in this case and assessee's counsel could not controvert the factual findings in the above Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)'s order. Accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 7. Another issue raised by the assessee in this case is that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of NRI account has been misused by money laundering for channelizing non accounted money to the books of accounts of beneficiaries and forwarded the statements of certain persons. 11. As regard the validity of the gifts, Assessing Officer noted that assessee was continuously non-cooperating. Hence, he was constrained to pass the order to best of his judgment and on the basis of material on record. Assessing Officer noted that no evidence has been furnished with the original return of income proving the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of alleged gifts. The alleged donor denied of having made any gift and stated that he is actually a student and he had never visited in India, in his letter to the Directorate of Enforcement. Further, Assessing Officer noted that the relationship with alleged donor and occasion on which the gift was received with him are missing. Therefore, Assessing Officer held that the money actually belonged to the assessee and he assessed the same as income from undisclosed sources. 12. Furthermore the Assessing Officer held that for taking the bogus gifts assessee has also paid a premium of 10% to 15% of the gift. Hence, Assessing Officer made add....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the gifts could not be said to be genuine. The reason offered by the assessee did not appear to be reasonable, much less acceptable. Therefore, there was no error in the view taken by the Tribunal. 15.2 Similarly, I find that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. P. Mohan Kala [2007] 291 ITR 278 has held as under:- "A bare reading of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, suggests that (i) there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by the assessee; (ii) such credit has to be a sum of money during the previous year; and (iii) either (a) the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credits found in the books or (b) the explanation offered by the assessee, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, is not satisfactory. It is only then that the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. The expression "the assessee offers no explanation" means the assessee offers no proper, reasonable and acceptable explanation as regards the sums found credited in the books maintained by the assessee. The opinion of the Assessing Officer for not accepting the explanation offered by the assessee a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....illness of then counsel who was suffering from multiple ailments. Upon hearing both the parties and perusing the records, I condone the delay in filing of the appeals. 19. In the penalty order Assessing Officer noted that assessee has received alleged gifts and the onus squarely lied upon the assessee for establishing the capacity of the donor and genuineness of the gift. Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had failed to produce the donor Sh. Sanjeev Gupta for examination. Assessing Officer further noted that assessee was unable to submit that there is relationship of the assessee with Shri Sanjeev Gupta. The occasion of gift was not specified. Copy of bank account of Shri Sanjeev Gupta were not produced. Assessing Officer noted that alleged donor Sh. Sanjeev Gupta has stated to the Director of Enforcement that he was actually a part-time student and he did not visit India at the time when alleged accounts were opened, nor was he present at the time when they were closed. He has further submitted that he had not deposited any money into these accounts nor did he send any money to anybody for depositing in these accounts. 20. Therefore, Assessing Officer held that assessee h....