TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 677
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the addition of Rs. 75,39,521/- on account of gift received in kind by the assessee. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer on the above point. 3. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that a search and seizure action under section132 of the Act was carried out on 11.02.2009 in the case of Amod Group including the assessee. Accordingly, a notice under section 153A was issued on 03.06.2009. In response to which, the assessee has filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 14,31,120 on 06.07.2009. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that theassessee has shown to have accepted gift in kind in the form of equity shares of Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. of 3875 shares and 2650 shares vide declarations of gift deed dated 7.2.2008 and 17.3.2008 respectively. On examining the details of gift with the seized paper material (collected in the course of search proceedings u/s 132 of the Act in the case of Amod group as well as the assessee on 11.2..2009) the Ld.AO observed that gift was received from Shri Jayant Sanghavi not related to the assessee and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT (DR) vehemently supported the order of the AO. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the identical issue in the case of one of group members , Smt. Lalitaben N Patel is arosed in assessment year 2008-09, which has been decide in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal, hence, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of DCIT, CC-1, Baroda v. Smt. Lalitaben Narhari Patel in I.T.(S.S.A) No. 625/Ahd/2011 with C.O. No. 19/Ahd/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 dated 03.05.2019 and in the case of Shri Krupeshbhai N. Patel vs. DCIT, CC-1, Baroda in ITA No.590/Ahd/2011 for Asst. Year 2006-07 and others and further submitted that appeal of the Revenue challenging the order of the Tribunal was dismissed by Hon. Jurisdictional High Court in Tax Appeal No.938 of 2012 in the case of CIT vs. Krupeshbhai N. Patel vide order dated DCIT v. Tanmay S. Patel/I.T.SSA. No.622 /AHD/2011/& CO. No. 16/AHD/20112/A.Y.11-12 Page 4 of 11 29th April, 2013, on the ground that no question of law arises in the present tax appeal by the Revenue. 7. In rejoinder, the Ld. CIT (DR) submitted that the issue seems to have covered but the Ld.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vide declaration of gift deed dated 7.2.2008 and 17.3.2008. The donor is Shri Jayant Sanghavi not related to the assessee even distantly. The market value of these shares works out to Rs. 46,80,540/- on the day of declaration of gift. 6.1 In fact, the total amount of gifts received from Shri Jayant Sanghavi by the appellant and the family members in Feb./March, 2008 is Rs. 4,70,58,686/-. The AO has held that the gifts received in kind i.e. Shares of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. by the appellant and the family members as income from undisclosed sources and, therefore, added it to the total income of appellant and the family members as per detailed discussion in para 4 of assessment order 6.2 It has been held by the AO that gifts received in kind by the appellant and the family members from Shri Jayant Sanghvi who is the husband of Smt. VishakhaSanghvi to whom Gotri land has been sold by the family members of the AppelIant;ShriKrupeshbhai N. Patel and ShriNavinbhai N. Patel are nothing but part of undisclosed sale consideration in respect of Gotri land. 6.3 Thereafter, on the basis of detailed scrutiny of the seized papers relating to sale of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ws that the donor and the donee must both be living. (8) In case of movable property, there must be either a registered instrument properly attested or delivery of possession." 9.9 The gift of shares in the case of appellant needs to be examined with reference to the most vital requisite of a valid gift i.e. it must be voluntary and without consideration. For this purpose it is important to note that: - . (i) Shri Jayant Sanghvi is not related to the appellant and its family even though they may belong to the same community. (ii) There is no other occasion when the gift has been made by Shri Jayant Sanghvi or his family to the appellant and its family members. ' . . (iii) There is no religious or any other social occasion on which such huge gifts have been given. (iv) There is nothing on record to show that the appellant and its family, at any occasion in the past, has given any gift to Shri Jayant Sanghvi and his family. (v) The gift in question is not a meager amount but in total Rs. 4.70 crores given to the appellant and its family members. In view of the above, appellant has failed to furnish the proof relating ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nds of the appellant and Shri Navin N. Patel (joint owners) of Rs. 2,35,00,0007- each on protective basis is confirmed on substantive basis. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 65,83,830/- in AY 2008-09 made on account of non-genuineness of gifts by treating it as part of total sale consideration is, hereby, deleted." 8. In view of the above findings, the addition of Rs. 46,80,5407- on account of gifts is deleted. Therefore, the second and third grounds of appeal are accordingly allowed, subject to above findings." 7. We also observe that similar issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of ShriKrupeshbhai N. Patel vs. DCIT, CC-1, Baroda in ITA No.590/Ahd/2011 for Asst. Year 2006-07 and others and the revenue's appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal by observing as under :- "(f) A.Y.2008-09 - IT(SS)A No. 595/Ahd/2011 (Revenue's appeal) 20. Grounds are reproduced below:- 1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case by deleting the addition of Rs. 28,05,666/- (Rs.28,05,666 in the case of ShriNavinbhaiN.Patel) on account of sale of Ampad land on the basis of seized papers. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in law and on facts a....