TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 1091
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment as made by A.O. is beyond jurisdiction and to be treated as null and void. (2) Considering gift received of Rs. 8,00,000.00 through banking channel from NRI Aunt as unexplained. (3) Any other manner with prior approval of the Hon'ble Bench." Ground No. 1 is regarding the validity of assessment being beyond jurisdiction of the AO. 2. The ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the AO selected the case of the assessee for limited scrutiny on account of increase in the capital account of the assessee. However, the AO while completing the assessment has travelled beyond the scope of scrutiny and also made addition of Rs. 3,20,000/- under sections 68 and 69 of the IT Act. Hence the ld. A/R has submitted that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal, written submission, remand report and rejoinder carefully. The appellant had contended that since the notice issued u/s 143(2) was for limited scrutiny, therefore, the AO could not have made the addition of Rs. 8 lac and Rs. 3,20,000/- u/s 68 and 69. It is seen that the case was selected to examine the addition of Rs. 17,88,869/- in the capital account. The addition made by the AO are only with respect to the unexplained source of addition to capital account. Therefore, it is held that the AO has not travelled beyond the issue for which the case was selected for scrutiny. Hence, this ground of appeal is dismissed." The ld. CIT (A) has considered the fact that the additions made by the AO are only with respect to the unexplained sour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mount under section 68 being unexplained cash credit. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT (A) and reiterated his contention that the amount in question is a gift received by the assessee from his Aunt Smt. Poonam Kanjani. However, the ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the addition made by the AO on the ground that the assessee has failed to produce any evidence that the said amount was received from Smt. Poonam Kanjani from UAE. The assessee produced the evidence to show only the transfer of the said amount from the account of Shri Raj Kumar of Hyderabad to the Bank account of the assessee. 6. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has reiterated his contention and submitted that when the assessee produced the bank ce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of family. Further, the genuineness of the transaction has not been proved when the assessee has received the money not directly from Smt. Poonam Kanjani, but the amount was received from one Shri Raj Kumar of Hyderabad who is not connected or related to the assessee. The nexus of the amount being transferred from the account of Smt. Poonam Kanjani to the account of Shri Raj Kumar of Hyderabad has not been proved. Hence the assessee has failed to establish the claim of gift and accordingly the AO was justified in making the addition under section 68 of the Act. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 8. Having considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record, we note that the assessee has c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs. 8,00,000/- and failed to establish and explain the same being a gift received from Smt. Poonam Kanjani, then the assessee has not discharged his onus of proving the genuineness of the transaction of gift. The Assessing Officer has considered this issue at pages 2 to 4 as under :- " Therefore in order to check the genuineness of the transaction letter was written to Shri Rajkumar at his Hyderabad address and the letter was returned by the postal authorities un-served. Therefore, the A.R. was asked to give show cause why the NRI gift should not be added to the Income of the assessee as the genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of the gift giver as near relative was not proved. The A.R was asked to submit the reply by 16/....