TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1357
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income Tax act, instead of taking the peak of Rs. 6,55,350/-. 3. The appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion and amendments in ground of appeal, till the disposal of the appeal ." 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 on 31.07.2008, declaring total income of Rs. 3,66,724/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed as such under Sec. 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was thereafter taken up for scrutiny assessment under Sec. 143(2). 3. The information received by the A.O from ITS/AIS generated in CASS, revealed that the assessee had made cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 37,53,500/-in his bank account with Development Co-operative Bank, Branch : Prabhadevi and Branch : Santacruz (E). That on a query by the A.O it was submitted by the assessee that cash of Rs. 23,20,000/- was deposited by him in his saving bank account No. 8578 with DCB Bank, Branch : Santacruz (E) during the year under consideration, source of which was the cash withdrawals made from the said bank account itself. That as the information available with the A.O as regards the cash deposit of Rs. 37,53,500/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the bank account No. 02610100035662 revealed that the assessee had deposited cash aggregating to Rs. 14,33,500/- in the said bank account during the year under consideration. The A.O on the basis of the information available before him, observed that the assessee had at all stages refrained from making a mention about his aforesaid saving bank account No. 02610100035662 with DCB Bank and the cash deposit of Rs. 14,33,500/- made in the same. 4. The assessee on being confronted with the cash deposits of Rs. 23,20,000/- in his SB A/c No. 02610100008578 with DCB Bank, Branch: Santacruz (E), submitted that the same was by way of redeposit of cash which was withdrawn from the said bank account. The assessee submitted before the A.O that as his father and uncle were both suffering from multiple medical problems, viz. heart problem, blood pressure and diabetes, therefore, in order to meet out the hospitalization and surgery cost he had withdrawn cash of Rs. 3 to 4 lacs several times during the year, which however to the extent the same remained unutilised was re-deposited from time to time in the bank account. The assessee in order to drive home his claim as regards the illness of his ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made by the assessee in his aforesaid bank account were out of his undisclosed sources of income. 6. The A.O on the basis of his aforesaid observations made an addition of Rs. 20,33,500/- in respect of the aforesaid bank accounts of the assessee, viz. (i) addition in respect of cash deposits of Rs. 6,00,000/- in SB A/c No. 02610100008578 with DCB Bank; and (ii) cash deposit of Rs. 14,33,500/- in the undisclosed SB A/c No. 02610100035662 with DCB Bank, as unexplained cash credits in the hands of the assessee. 7. The assessee during the course of the assessment proceedings placed on record a letter dated 18.10.2010, as per which it was claimed that he had received a gift of Rs. 5,00,000/- from his aunt Mrs. Anis Jariwala. The assessee supported his aforesaid claim on the basis of a photocopy of fax message dated 18.10.2010, which was stated to have been received from his aforesaid aunt Mrs. Anis Jariwala. That a perusal of the Fax message revealed that it was claimed by Mrs. Anis Jariwala that shewas giving the gift of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the assessee Mr. Abid Merchant for the medical treatment of her brothers, viz. Shiraz Merchant and Shaukat Merchant. The A.O observed that in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the copy of the account opening form which was furnished by the bank in response to notice u/s 133(6), revealed that the assessee was the first account holder in both of the bank accounts held with DCB Bank. The CIT(A) observed that Sh. Arshad Aziz was only the second account holder in respect of the account maintained with DCB Bank, Prabhadevi Branch. The CIT(A) observed that the explanation offered by the assessee that Sh. Arshad Aziz who had shifted to U.K along with his family had came back to India in the F.Y. 2006-07 and wanted to start retail business for which the account No. 02610100035662 was opened with DCB Bank, Prabhadevi Branch, was an unsubstantiated claim of the assessee, which not found to be supported by any evidence, thus, could not be accepted. The CIT(A) was also not persuaded to accept the claim of the assessee that the deposits and withdrawals in the bank account No. 02610100035662 with DCB Bank, Branch Prabhadevi were made by Mr. Arshad Aziz, for the reason that no supporting evidence such as copy of the counterfoil of the challans for making deposits and the copies of the cheques/withdrawal slips supporting the said fact was placed on record by the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered from certain material defects, viz. (i) the confirmation letter of the donor which was placed on record by the assessee was undated; (ii) there was no mention of the mode of gift; and (iii) that despite a specific query by the A.O the assessee had failed to place on record any supporting evidence such as bank passbook of Mrs. Anis Jariwala which could substantiate the veracity of the gift transaction. The CIT(A) observed that the claim of the assessee that he had received a gift of Rs. 5,00,000/- from his aunt Mrs. Anis Jariwala was clearly an afterthought. It was observed by the CIT(A) that had the assessee been in receipt of the aforesaid gift, then the same would have been reflected in his capital account in the balance sheet. The CIT(A) was also not persuaded to accept the claim of the assessee that by mistake the gift was wrongly shown as a loan. The CIT(A) held a conviction that the assessee on being cornered with a deficit cash in the backdrop of the cash deposited in his bank accounts with DCB Bank, had thus tried to explain the same by way of receipt of gift from Mrs. Anis Jariwala. The CIT(A) fortifying his aforesaid view observed that if the claim of the assessee wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aking cognizance of the failure on the part of the A.O to consider the cash withdrawal of Rs. 50,000/- while working out the total cash withdrawals from the aforesaid bank account, had thus allowed a relief of Rs. 50,000/- in respect of the addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- made by the A.O on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account No. 02610100008578 with DCB Bank. The Ld. A.R further submitted that the CIT(A) had erred in not accepting the gift of Rs. 5,00,000/- which was received by the assessee from his aunt Mrs. Anis Jariwala. It was further averred by the Ld. A.R that the CIT(A) had failed to restrict the addition in respect of the cash deposits made in the SB A/c No. 02610100035662 with DCB Bank to the extent of the peak cash credit of Rs. 6,55,350/- and had wrongly upheld the entire addition of Rs. 14,33,500/-. Per Contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (for short 'D.R') relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 11. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. We find that our indulgence in the present case had been sought to adjudicate two issues,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s aunt Mrs. Anis Jariwala on 26.11.2007. Rather, the copy of account of DCB Bank revealed that the balance available as on 26.11.2007 in the bank account of the assessee was to the extent of Rs. 10,44,335/-, which thus clearly ruled out any occasion for taking a gift on an emergency basis by the assessee. We are also of the view that now when the donor Mrs. Anis Jariwala had intended to financially assist her brothers for meeting out their emergency medical needs, therefore, there was no reason for not providing such financial assistance directly to them, and that too by cheques, rather than routing the same through her nephew, i.e. the assessee. We are of the considered view that the documentary evidence placed on record by the assessee in his attempt to substantiate the genuineness of the gift transaction under consideration does not inspire any confidence. We are rather of a strong conviction that in the backdrop of the facts emerging from the records, it can safely be concluded that the assessee had not only failed to discharge the onus as stood cast upon him, but rather, a perusal of the facts clearly reveals that the explanation tendered by him was clearly a result of an afte....