TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 879
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... on 23/07/2015. none appeared on behalf of the assessee and there is no request for adjournment. Considering this fact that the adjournment was already allowed to the assessee on several occasions and Learned A. R. of the assessee is seeking adjournment on each of such occasions on some pretext or other, we do not find any justifiable reason for granting any further adjournment, that too without even a request for adjournment from the assessee or Learned A. R. of the assessee. Hence, these appeals were heard ex-parte qua the assessee. 4. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the orders of learned CIT(A) in all the three appeals. 5. First we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2003- 04 in I. T. A. No.604/Lkw/2014. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: "1. Because the Ld. CIT(A), Kanpur, erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition made by the AO while disbelieving the genuineness of the Gifts received by assessee, without there being any incriminating material or evidence discovered during the search operations. Further, the Ld. CIT(A), has himself deleted certain other additions made by the AO, where there was no incrim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on record. Further in Punjabis it is considered an immorality to take money from sister.) There was no relationship between the assessee and the donor and no occasion was also specified for making the gifts. No Evidence has been furnished during appeal proceeding to prove creditworthiness of the alleged gift. The AO has established that the impugned transactions of gifts are non-genuine a purely arranged entries. This aspect remains unconrroverted before me also. The Hon'ble High Court held in the case of Subhash Chander Sekhri V DCIT (2007) 290 TR 300 (P&H) that : "In the absence of no evidence to show that alleged gifts were received on the occasion of marriage in family or other happy occasions, from relatives, the Tribunal's findings in confirming such additions cannot be held as perverse." 7.2.13 Under the circumstances, the inference made by the assessing officer that gift is bogus is quite cogent enough. 7.2.14 The addition made by A.O, in this regard is, therefore, confirmed." 6.1 From the above paras from the order of learned CIT(A), we find that a clear and categorical finding has been given by him that the gift was stated to be made by an unrelated do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 68, resting his decisions on unsound reasons which are rather arbitrary, contrary to facts and circumstances of the case and deserves to be deleted. 5. Because the order passed by Ld. CIT(A), on this count is bad in law and deserves to be deleted." 9. We find that in this year also, the facts and decision of CIT(A) are identical and it is noted by learned CIT(A) in Para 7.2.12 of his order that the gift is stated to be made by unrelated donor to the assessee. He has also given a finding that there was no relationship between the assessee and the donor and no occasion was also specified for making the gifts. He has also given a finding that no evidence has been furnished to prove creditworthiness of the donor. Hence, it is seen that the facts of the present year are identical and therefore, in line with our decision for assessment year 2003-04, we decline to interfere in the order of learned CIT(A) for assessment year 2004- 05 also. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. 11. Now we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2005- 06 in I. T. A. No.606/Lkw/2014. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: "1. Bec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... property in above mentioned premise. On perusal of copy of seized sale deed executed on 13.07.2004 that Smt Pradeep Kaur had purchased the said property for a consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/-. However, on perusal of other seized stamp papers & papers titled " Agreement to Sell", affidavit General power of attorney, receipt and possession letter shows that Smt. Pardeep Kaur wife of the assessee had purchased the said property for a consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/-. A "Receipt" seized at page No. 10 of annexure A-l to the panchnama dated 01.09.2005 contains following: 'Received Rs. 1,00,000/- (One lac only) from Shri Jitender Singh s/o Shri Mukhtar Singh R/O G-144, Vikaspuri, New Delhi- 110 018 against the sale of basement area of A-111, Shankar Garden New Delhi- 110 018 measuring area 200 sq. years. Total deal settled Rs. 8,61,000/- (eight lac sixty one thousand only ). Now the balance Rs. 7,61,000/- (seven lacs sixty one thousands only) will be paid on or before 07.05.2004." As evident from the language of "Receipt", it is clear that sale consideration of the said property was Rs. 8,61,000/- and assesses has given an advance of Rs. 7,00,000/- to vendor Shri S P Chopra. Dur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made investment or his wife, therefore, I have left with no option to make addition of Rs. 8,73,000/- on protective basis in the hands of the assessee and on substantive basis in the hands of his wife Pardeep Kaur. Since, Smt. Pradeep Kaur is assed to tax with ITO 26(1), New Delhi, a reference is being made to Assessing Officer for invoking provision of section 153-C of the Income Tax Act. .......................... The addition made is based on wrong facts, illegal and prayed to be deleted. 7.1.2 In this regard the A.O. in his Remand Report asked for vide letter dated 24.08.2008 has submitted as under: In regards to protective addition of Rs. 8,73,000/- in the case of the assessee, your goodself has desired to know that whether substantive addition had been made in the case of his wife and to present status of this substantive addition. On perusal of the assessment order it is found that the AO had stated that reference was being made to IT0 26(1), New Delhi for making substantive addition in the case of wife of the assessee i. E. Smt Pradeep Kaur. However, on examination of the assessment order, no such reference was found. However, a letter was issued to the ITO 26(1), Ne....