TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 1203
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0000/- . Facts of the case have not been appreciated properly. Reasons for re-opening the asst. are different from the basis on which addition was made by the A.O. copy of bank account was filled during the course of re-asst. proceedings. Earlier to that the deptt had nothing on record. No accommodation entry was received or proved to have been received. Thus the addition retained is liable to be deleted. 3. At the time of hearing of the appeal, Shri Surjit Singh Bhadu, Ld. Counsel for the assessee did not press for ground No.1 of the appeal and hence the same is dismissed as not pressed. 4. Vide ground No. 2 the assessee has challenged the action of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs and has also challenged the reopening of the assessment on the ground that reasons for reopening are different from the basis on which addition was made by the Assessing Officer. 5. The facts of the present case are that the assessee filed return of income on 30.07.2002 declaring total income at Rs. 70,755/-. Information was received by the Assessing Officer from the Investigation Wing of the Department to the effect that assessee had received hawala payment of Rs. 3,00,750/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r were mentioned in the said deed. The assessee failed to produce the donors for verification and summons were received back 'unserved'. When asked to file confirmation from the donors and produced them for verification, the assessee shown her inability to produce the donors as well as file their confirmations. Admittedly, there was no direct or indirect relation of the donee with the donors. There was no occasion for making the gifts. The Assessing Officer relying on the judgement of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jaspal Singh v CIT (2007) 290 ITR 306 (P&H) held that onus is on the assessee to prove the identity of the donor and his capacity to make gift which the assessee has failed to prove. The Assessing Officer also relied on the judgement of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Lal Chand Kalra v CIT (1981) 22 CTR (P&H)135. The Assessing Officer concluded that why a stranger would gift to a person when there is no occasion to make the gift. He, therefore, made the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs treating the same as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. 6. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition for the reasons stated in p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "147. Income escaping assessment.-. . . Explanation 3.-For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the pro ceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under subsection (2) of section 148." A plain reading of Explanation 3 to section 147 clearly depicts that the Assessing Officer has power to make additions even on the ground on which reassessment notice might not have been issued in case during the reassessment proceedings, he arrives at a conclusion that some other income has escaped assessment which comes to his notice during the course of proceedings for reassessment under section 148 of the Act. The provision nowhere postulates or contemplates that it is only when there is some addition on the ground on which reassessment had been initiated, that the Assessing Officer can make additions on any other ground on the basis of which income may have escaped assessment. The reassessment pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to appreciate the facts that appellant has proved genuineness of gift by submitting the Income Tax returns and Gift deeds of the donors. The appellant duly discharges the onus to prove the genuineness of gift and onus shifted to the department to prove it was not genuine which was not discharged by the A.O. and also not appreciated by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. That the Ld. Commission had erred in not passing a speaking order. 11. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is general and does not need separate adjudication. 12. During the course of hearing ground No.2 was not pressed by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee, therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 13. As regards ground Nos. 3 to 6 of the appeal, Ld. counsel for the assessee Shri Surjit Bhadu submitted that the issues raised vide above grounds are identical to the issue raised in the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2002-03 in ITA No. 365/Chd/2011. In this case, the Assessing Officer received an information from Investigation Wing of the Revenue Department that the assessee had received Hawala payment of Rs. 5,01,250/- through draft. Thereafter, the case was reopened u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee had r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respect of concealment of any income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income which is mandatory under the law. That the Ld. A.O. has erred in imposing penalty of Rs. 1,43,032/- U/S 271(1)(c) without appreciating the facts and despite the complete details of identity and geniuses of credits are verifiable from income tax and wealth tax returns. 5. That apart from rejecting the explanation rendered by the assessee appellant, no other positive material has been brought on record to hold that there is any conceal this action of ident or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income warranting imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 18. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that assessee had shown gifts of Rs. 3,00,000/- & Rs. 2,00,000/- from Shri Chander Bahn and Shri Bhawani Shankar respectively but assessee has failed to file the confirmation from the donors and also could not produced them. There was no direct or indirect relationship of the assessee with the donors. Further, summons issued to both the donors u/s 131 of the Act were received back unserved. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added gifts as unexplained income of the ass....