TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 519
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Accountant/counsel, and thereat, during conference, the decision in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan [2012] 349 ITR 76 (Bom) dated 05.07.2012 came to notice, and being considered as applicable in the facts of the case, was accordingly advised for filing the instant appeal, which was so done on 23/4/2013 (and not 25/4/1013, as stated in the petition). The said decision is, firstly, not on condonation of delay. On merits, the said decision, in ratio, holds that a reasonable belief for escapement of income by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) could not be made in the absence of fresh tangible material, so that there was no basis for the issue of a notice u/s. 148 where the income had been assessed u/s. 143(3), whereat the same material stood considered by the AO. We are unable to see any correlation of the said decision with the facts of the present case, for it to be relevant, which, even otherwise, i.e., where so, would impact the merits of the case and not explain the delay in filing the appeal, in any manner. The said decision even otherwise reiterates the trite law that a review is impermissible under reassessment proceedings. Could it be under the circumstances said that the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... expenses by the assessee on his sister's visit to India, and which was deemed as his income u/s. 69C in-as-much as the source thereof was unexplained; no expenditure in its respect being reflected in the assessee's accounts. In appeal, it was contended that the additional expenditure incurred on the sister's visit was only to the tune of INR 30,000, withdrawn in cash on 03.10.2005 (Rs.20,000/-) and 07.10.2005 (Rs.10,000/-). This was in addition to the regular monthly household withdrawal of Rs. 13,000/-. As Ms. Chiang was unable to look after her father, she, in appreciation of her brother taking care of their father, remitted the sums out of love and affection by way of gift/s. Copies of passport of her two sons were also filed as an additional evidence, in support of the claim of their non-visit to India along with their mother (or even otherwise during the year), which was though not admitted by the ld. CIT(A) as there was no reason for not filing the same at the assessment stage, nor any useful purpose would be served in view of the admitted fact of Ms. Chiang visiting India alone in October, 2005, i.e., during the relevant year. In the view of the ld. CIT(A), the A.O.'s actio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....impact the withdrawal for personal purposes, which would thus stand reduced to an aggregate of Rs. 5.90 lacs, to any material extent. This leaves us only with the expenditure on the father's illness. In this regard, what was, to begin with, the fathers' illness, i.e., its nature? For how long he had been ill, and what was its' gravity inasmuch as it proved fatal - he finally expiring on 06.01.2006. What was the immediate cause of his death? Was he hospitalized during the relevant year and, if so, where and for how long? These and the like questions would normally arise qua the expenditure on the fathers' illness, who was apart there-from, also in an advanced age, which itself carries health problems. The assessee, however, has choosen to be silent on this, even as he, being a medical professional (Dentist), would be far more educated about the same than perhaps any (non-medical) person would be, and thus acutely aware of the medical treatment being undertaken. What did the same entail? Was he required to visit hospital regularly, etc. The assessee, despite this being the fulcrum of the matter, has been totally silent on the matter. Why? That apart, no expenditure has been stated t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anciful. We have already stated of the father being ill, undergoing medical treatment at the relevant time, so that there was no question of visiting any place during the visit. The letter dated 18.05.2005 is again only an after creation, as evident from the fact that it states of draft of US $10000 as enclosed along with, while, admittedly, the first remittance was sent only by cheque vide letter dated 25.06.2005, i.e., after over a month. Further, the same states of the amount being remitted per cheque and, further, as a gift. Had the plan of the visit been dropped by then? If so, what explains the change in the purpose of the remittance from 'expenditure' on the (proposed) visit to 'gift', except perhaps by way of contribution toward the father's medical treatment? The other two cheques, i.e., following her visit, again, though stated to be gifts (vide the forwarding letters dated 21.11.2005 and 19.12.2005), clearly reflect the underlying concern for the father and, further, of being unable to take care of him, with a view to contribute, in whatever she way she could under the circumstances. This, apart from being inferable from her conduct and the course of events, is explicit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sum expended by the brother. The same means only that. It is nobody's case or claim that the amount was by way of reimbursement to the brother of the expenses incurred by him, or that the two had agreed to share the same in some defined ratio, and which would in fact only be possible if detailed and meticulous accounts of the expenditure had been maintained, which may have been for years, i.e., even earlier to the current year. All she intends to is to contribute her bit toward the expenses on her father's medical treatment (to the actual amount spent thereon). Rather, if anything, it clarifies or endorses the incurring of the expenditure. This is as only in the event of the expenditure being incurred, would the question of the same being contributed to, or of being in relation thereto, arise. As regards the aspect which contradicts, in our clear view, the same being inconsistent with the conspectus of the case, is, to that extent, contradictory, and devoid of value. If no expenditure was to be incurred or planned to be, on the visit, where is the question of remitting the money toward the same? Further, how could it then be a gift, or have no relation, as stated, to the expenditu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er's visit to India, even though there is no direct evidence of such expenditure, validate the incurring of the expenditure to that extent. Put differently, the proof of the pudding lies in its eating; the withdrawal explaining the expenditure to that extent. It is again not to be lost sight of that the remittance stated to be a gift, to the extent not so, is liable to be deemed as the assessee's income u/s. 68 of the Act. This is as a credit, to be not so deemed, is to be satisfactorily explained as to its nature and source. There is no doubt in the present case as to the source; the assessee's sister, Ms. Hapiping C. Chiang, who is working with Canadian Trust Company, having adequate income/ capital. It is the nature of the credit, however, that the assessee has not been able to satisfactorily prove, so that to that extent it becomes an unexplained credit. In fact, 'gifts' are considered as income, i.e., generally, only on account of the inability to explain or substantiate the nature of the sum credited, which includes the credit to, as in the instant case, the assessee's capital account, even as there is little to doubt qua its source. In Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 80....