TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 750
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dian Railways. He filed his return of income declaring gross total income of Rs. 2,35,672/ on 29.12.2008. 2.1. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice to the assessee u/s 143(2) of the Act on 30.7.2010. The assessee vide letter dated 7.7.2010 requested the A.O. to treat the return filed earlier on 29.12.2008, as that which is filed in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act). 2.2. The reasons recorded for reopening were as follows. "The return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 has been filed by the assessee on 28.12.2008 at the total income of Rs. 1,91,578/- on ITR-1. In this case an information has been received that the assessee has maintained a S.B.A/c no.39460001000 45583 with PNB, Ghaziabad. The as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the assessee Mr. Rajan Bhatia submitted that : (a) The reopening is bad in law as the A.O. had time to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on the return of income originally filed, up to December,2009, as the material based on which notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued, was in the knowledge and possession of the A.O. before December,2009. In other words his submissions that, though the entire information was with the A.O. before December, 2009, as the Investigation Wing had recorded the statement of oath from the assessee and others on 19th December,2008 and sent its report along with the information to the A.O. and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not issued to the assessee picking up the case for scrutiny. The A.O. waited for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....O. neglected the same. Regarding the gift from his father he submitted that the person who gave money to his father Shri Ram Kumar Sharma was examined on oath by the A.O. and he had confirmed having given the money. He pointed out that no independent investigation could be made by the A.O. and he merely made the addition by disbelieving the evidence filed by the assessee and the affidavits collected on oath by the AO on examination of parties. He gave point wise rejoinder to each of the findings given by the A.O. as well as the Ld.CIT(A). 7. The Ld.Sr.D.R. on the other hand opposed the contentions of the assessee and submitted that the reopening was based on information received from the Investigation Wing. He argued that the statement ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case laws cited, we hold as follows. 10. We first take up the issue on merits. The A.O. accepted as genuine the gift received by the assessee from his wife Smt.Kaushal Sharma to the extent of Rs. 9,10,000/-. Amount received as gift from the mother and father of the assessee were disbelieved and addition made. On perusal of the evidences, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee has lead sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of these gifts. Both the mother and father have confirmed having given the gifs and have filed affidavits in support of the same. Gift deeds were executed by both of them. As the mother was not keeping well, she could not be produced before the A.O. Nevertheless, the assessee had vide letter dt. 5.7.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of funds were explained as amount received from Sh.Ram Kumar Sharma on the execution of an agreement to sell. Mr.Ram Kumar Sharma confirmed this agreement on oath. The AO has not an iota of evidence to disbelieve these evidences or these statements recorded of oath. The A.O. rejected the evidence filed by the assessee based on surmises and conjectures. If the source of funds cannot be proved by the father or by Mr.Ram Kumar Sharma, the course of action should have been to make an addition in their hands. Sh.Sharma has filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2008-09. Thus in our view, the assessee discharged the burden of proof that lay on him and had proved the genuineness of these gifts. 11.1. Even otherwise the assessee being an engin....