2013 (8) TMI 241

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Rs. 9,86,000/- made u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained gift?      (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law in confirming the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition of freight charges of Rs. 1,09,68,236/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Question No.1 pertains to addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961 made by the Assessing Officer of a sum of Rs. 9.86 lacs on account of unexplained gift. Such issue was carried in appeal before the Commissioner. Commissioner reversed the findings of Assessing Officer on the ground that the gift was received from the brother of the assessee. Necessary details were provided to estab....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ee vide his letter dated 21.11.2008 that assessee should furnish the documentary evidence to identify the donor. Non-furnishing the details amount of Rs. 9.86 lacs as gift required to be added to the total income of the assessee. The AO made inquiries to examine the case in view of Section 56(2)(v) of the Act and all of a sudden in the assessment order turned to section 68 and made the addition merely by saying that the assessee failed to produce the evidence to satisfy the requirement of section 68 of the Act. The assessee vide his letter dated 15.12.2008 clearly point out to the AO that assessee received gift of Rs. 9.86 lacs from his brother which is appearing in capital account. The donor is real brother viz. Shri Rajendra R. Patel, who....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... find that CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal committed any error when both the authorities, concurrently on the evidence on record, found that the gift which was made by the brother of the assessee was genuine, and full details were produced during the course of the assessment, no question of law arises. 5. Second question pertains to disallowance of Rs. 1.09 crores (rounded off) expended by the assessee towards freight charges which disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act, primarily on the ground that though required to deduct tax at source, the assessee had failed to do so for the payment of freight charges, the Assessing Officer had made such disallowance (sic). 6. Assessee carried the matter....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o point out how the section 40(a)(ia) was applicable when the assessee was not required to make any deduction of tax at source on the transactions which were not more than 20,000/- or 50,000/- as the case may be. In the light of detailed discussion made while deciding the ground No.1 we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) is confirmed." 8. In this case also we do not see that the Tribunal has committed any error. CIT(A) had come to the conclusion that the AO could not point out any subcontractor in whose case the charges were made in excess of Rs. 20,000/- on an individual transaction or whether such charges totalled to more than Rs. 50,000/- in the year. These findings, though in some what d....