AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 1288
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have accepted the genuineness of the amounts received from her relatives i.e. Father, Sister and Father-in-law and their creditworthiness. 2.1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the evidences filed and submissions made during the appellate proceedings and the case law relied upon on behalf of the appellant. 2.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the facts of the cases relied upon by him, in rejecting the appellant's submissions, are entirely different from the facts in the present case. 2.3 That the observations of the lower authorities and the reasons for rejecting the appellants stand are based on surmises and conjectures and are contrary to the facts on record. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 80,298/- being expenses incurred for operating Chandanvan Tiny Tots School. 4. That the order passed by the lower authorities are bad in law, and the additions deserve to be deleted. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also not established. Under these circumstances, an addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- is made to the income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) have been initiated separately. Addition Rs. 5,00,000/- As regards gifts of Rs. 3,50,000/- from Smt. Anita Yadav, gift deed has been filed on which state that she has given Rs. 3,50,000/- as gift on 12/12/2008 to her sister in cash. She has furnish stated that the sources of gifted amount is my part saving and income from salaries. The perusal of the bank statement reveals that following amounts have been credited as salary:- 16.04.2008 10,570/- 13.05.2008 10,570/- 20.06.2008 10,570/- 26.07.2008 10,570/- 13.08.2008 10,570/- 12.09.2008 10,570/- 14.10.2008 10,570/- 10.11.2008 10,570/- 05.12.2008 11,570/- 07.01.2008 13,570/- 06.02.2009 13,570/- 05.03.2009 15,182/- 1,38,452/- This shows that she has earned salary to the extent of Rs. 1,38,452/-. All the salary payment has been received and accounted for in the bank prior to withdrawal. She has deposited cash in her bank account. The amount was withdrawn (cash) on 10.09.2008 Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- on 04.10.2008 whereas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the cash withdrawals of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 23.03.2009, however, the AO added Rs. 5,99,000/- in the assessment order, in spite of the assessee's submission that those were out of cash withdrawals from earlier date, on the ground that no evidence was submitted by the assessee to substantiate the contention. 8. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the assessee had withdrawn Rs. 5,00,000/- on 26.02.2009 and Rs. 3,00,000/- on 23.03.2009. Therefore, the preponderance of probabilities was in the favour of the assessee. Accordingly, addition of Rs. 5,99,000/- was deleted. 9. As regards to the balance addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- which comprises of cash deposits of Rs. 5,00,000/- each on 16.12.2008 and 13.02.2009. The submission of the assessee was that the said deposits were out of the gifts received from the relatives. The source of cash deposits made on 16.12.2008 was stated to be out of the gift of Rs. 3,50,000/- received from her sister Smt. Anita Singh on 12.12.2008. As regards to the deposits of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 13.02.2009. The assessee's submission was that this was out of gift of Rs. 5,00,000/- received from her father on 29.01.2009 and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ives. The reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Suresh Kumar Kakar (2010) 324 ITR 231. 11. In his rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that the assessee did not disclose the occasion of gift and had not fully explained the source for making the gift. Therefore, the addition was rightly made by the AO considering the gifts as non-genuine and the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in confirming the addition. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: * Rajeev Tandon Vs ACIT (2007) 294 ITR 488 (Del.) * ACIT Vs Rajeev Tandson (2007) 108 ITD 560 (Del.) 12. I have considered the submissions of both the parities and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it appears that the source of deposits in the bank account on 16.12.2008 and 13.02.2009 was stated by the assessee to be out of the gifts received from her sister Smt. Anita Yadav, father-in-law and father. All the three persons gave the confirmation of giving the gifts to the assessee, they explained their source in the confirmation and also filed the affidavit. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... addition of Rs. 80,298/- sustained by the ld. CIT(A) being expenses incurred for operating Chandanvan Tiny Tots School. 14. The facts related to this issue in brief are that the AO during the assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee filed bank statement of Chandanvan Tiny Tots School maintained with PNB, Mathura wherein cash had been deposited amounting to Rs. 2,00,298/- and nothing was debited. He further observed that no income from Chandanvan Tiny Tots School had been declared. He, therefore, considered the cash deposits of Rs. 2,00,298/- as unexplained and added the same to the income of the assessee. 15. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee had shown tuition income of Rs. 1,20,000/- in the profit and loss account, therefore, separate addition of Rs. 2,00,298/- was unwarranted. It was further submitted that the gross receipts from Chandanvan Tiny Tots School was deposited in her account with Punjab National bank and net receipts of Rs. 1,20,000/- was shown as tuition income in the profit and loss account. 16. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the assessee had no....