2019 (2) TMI 242

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["CIT(A) for short] that the gifts of Resurgent India Bonds ("the Bonds" for short) was not genuine and therefore, the amount in question should be added to the assessee's income in terms of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short). 2. Through amendment sought, learned counsel for the assessee had raised additional question questioning the jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax to have acted as an Assessing Officer in the present case. 3. Brief facts are as under:- (a) The appellant assessee is an individual. In the course of the assessment of his return for the assessment year 2003-04, the Assessing Officer noticed that the as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... such gifts. The assessee pointed out to the Assessing Officer that the gifts were received from third parties and it was, therefore, not possible for him to collect such details. The Assessing Officer disbelieved the gifts and added such income as assessee's unexplained cash credit in terms of Section 68 of the Act. (b). The assessee carried the matter in appeal. Before the CIT(A), the assessee raised the contention that the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax who had passed the order of assessment was not competent to do so. He relied on Section 2(7A) of the Act. The Commissioner negativated such contention. On merits also, the Commissioner confirmed the view of the Assessing Officer and thus, dismissed the appeal. (c). The as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t, the effect of such amendment must be applied to the pending proceedings as in the present case. Non-applying such amendment in the present proceedings would destroy the retrospectivity granted to it by the legislature. This contention of the assessee is, therefore, rejected. 5. In the context of the additions made by the Assessing Officer and ultimately sustained by the CIT (A) and the Tribunal, we do not see any question of law has arisen. Shorn of technicalities, the prime question before the Assessing Officer was with respect to the genuineness of the case. The assessee claimed to have received an amount of Rs. 25.90 Lacs (rounded off) which at the relevant time was sizable. The assessee failed to even produce must basic details pe....