TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 1152
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....U. Securities Private Limited. Inviting attention to page 3 of the assessment order it was submitted that the Assessing Officer, as mentioned in para 2.2 of his order, required the assessee to explain the RTGS receipt of Rs. 5,54,300/- in the assessee's disclosed saving bank account maintained with Dena Bank Account No.052610003211, Chawri Bazar, Delhi. The information as per the record was that the specific amount was transferred by RTGS from M/s D.U. Securities Private Limited. As per record, it was submitted by the assessee that payment for acquiring shares of the company through an agent were made. These payments were paid by cheque No.533893 dated 09.08.2008 of Rs. 2,62,000/- and Cheque No.533894 dated 13.08.2008 for Rs. 2,95,000/-. The payments it was stated had been made to the said concern from the very same bank account and since ultimately no shares were allotted, the amount was returned by the said concern by RTGS again to the very same bank account of the assessee. 3.1. Accordingly, it was submitted that all along the assessee has been submitting that this was a return of assessee's own money. The tax authorities it was submitted have not accepted the explanation only....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng to some assertion of some unconnected person relied upon by the Inspector. In the circumstances, it was his submission he would have no objection to verification by the Revenue but before that the Revenue atleast should be called upon to spell out what further verification is required. 6. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is seen that the AO required the assessee to explain the deposits of Rs. 5,54,300/- on 23.03.2010 in the assessee's Dena Bank A/c No052610003211. The transaction as per the bank statement was described as "RTGS D.U. SECURITIES PRIVATE". I find from the explanation reproduced in the assessment order by the Assessing Officer in para 2.3 that the assessee explained alongwith supporting evidences that from the specific bank account number-52610003211 in Dena Bank, Chawri Bazar, Delhi payments of Rs. 5,57,000/- vide cheque No.533893 dated 09.08.2008 and of Rs. 2,62,000/- vide cheque No.533894 dated 13.08.2008 for Rs. 2,95,000/- were made to the account of D.U. Securities Pvt. Ltd. The payments were explained as share application money in the said company. Supporting evidence by way of bank statement were filed stati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nstrate that the payment flowed from the specific bank account of the assessee to M/s D.U. Securities Pvt.Ltd. and in the absence of any rebuttal on the explanation consistently on record that it was for acquiring shares when considered in the context of the complete facts on record the claim has to be allowed. It is an accepted fact that the transaction amount under consideration flows back from the said concern by RTGS. The fact that the premises are found to be always locked can be explained by the notice affixed at the premises of Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "DRT") which has been extracted by the Assessing Officer himself. These facts adequately demonstrate that the said concern definitely was in existence and found in occupation at the premises when the ITI visited though now always found locked. Although the Ld AR had submitted that he has no objection if the fact is verified, I find that as far as the facts of the present case are concerned any further verification would have been relevant if the fact that the amount had flown to the said concern was required to be proved or the fact that it has come back from the said concern was to be proved. Both th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at simply because the assessee failed to produce the donor, the addition has been made. 8. The Ld. Sr. DR inviting attention to the assessment order, submitted that in fact the assessee had made a surrender of the said amounts through his counsel and the addition on facts was warranted. 9. The Ld. AR submitted that the addition has not been sustained by the CIT(A) on this ground and therefore, the argument of the Ld.Sr.DR, is dehorse the facts. It was also his submission that in fact no surrender was made by the assessee and the AO merely recorded that the counsel offered to surrender the amount subject to the condition that the AO would not levy any penalty on the assessee for concealment. The mere conditional offer of the counsel and that too without the specific authority of the assessee to do so it was submitted cannot lead to the conclusion that there was a surrender. It was conceded that in certain circumstances, an assessee may be willing to surrender the amount but since on facts the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings, admittedly the offer, if any, was not accepted. It was also submitted that the fact that there was no surrender is evident from the fact that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Das to their Damad Sh. Shyam Lal Tayal costing jewellery of Rs. 175000/- and the assessee has sold the same jewellery weighted 442 gm to M/s Gupta Jewellers pVt.ltd. for a sum of Rs. 5,76,920/-. The indexed cost of the said jewellery comes to Rs. 558247/- as mentioned in detail in our computation of income already filed to your good self, showing the long term capital gain of Rs. 18673/-. We have already produced the Managing Director of the buyer M/s Gupta Jewellers Pvt.Ltd. alongwith their books of accounts and other requisite documents and ready to produce the donor at your order and do herewith file detailed statement and affidavit of the donor Mrs. Santosh Devi for your kind consideration and hence the sales consideration of Rs. 576920/- may not be held out income from other sources." 10.1. The AO holding that no affidavit was found and noting that the assessee was required to produce the donor vide order sheet entry dated 25.03.2013 added the same in the hands of the assessee. The assessment order it is noted is dated 26.03.2013. In this background when considering the Ld.Sr.DR's submission that the assessment order records that the Ld.AR offered to surrender the amount, I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee may be vis-à-vis the taxpayer, he still has no authority to sign the grounds of the appeal or the return of the taxpayer. Thus, whenever and wherever a taxpayer disputes that his authorized representative did not have the authority to settle/surrender an issue then the surrender or settlement becomes questionable. In the facts of the present case it is also seen that even the CIT(A) has not proceeded on the footing that the issue has been surrendered by the assessee. Reverting to address the correctness of the decision of the Ld.CIT(A), it is seen that the claim of the assessee has been rejected holding that the assessee has failed to produce his mother-in-law for examination on the date of hearing. It is seen that the Ld.CIT(A) has not taken care to note the fact that the direction to produce the donor was given only on 25.03.2013 and no time was given to the assessee to produce her as the assessment order it is noticed is dated 26.03.2013. Considering the fact that the written submissions dated 16.08.2013 were filed before the CIT(A) as part of which have been reproduced in page 4 of the impugned order while considering the first ground it is also seen that it is acco....