AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 97
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tailed questionnaire were issued and served upon the assesseee. The authorized representative of the assesseee appeared before the AO and sought adjournment which was granted by the AO. However, there was non-compliance from the side of the assesseee subsequently for which the AO proceeded to make assessment u/s 144 of the Act. 4. The AO noted that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 32,90,000/- in Oriental Bank of Commerce and Rs. 17,50,000/- in Punjab National Bank during the impugned assessment year the details of which are given at para 2 of the assessment order. Since the assessee did not file any reply to explain the source of such cash deposits in the bank account, the AO relying on various decisions, made addition of the same to the total income of the assessee. 5. Similarly, the claim of the assessee of Rs. 42,850/- u/s 80C of the Act was disallowed by the AO in absence of filing of any proof to substantiate the same. The AO further made an addition of Rs. 13,344/- and Rs. 30,609/- being interest received on savings bank account maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce and Punjab National Bank respectively. Similarly, the interest on fixed deposits of Rs. 40,8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s additions made by the AO. 7. So far as the cash flow statement filed by the assessee wherein it was submitted that the assessee has received certain gifts from his parents, opening cash balance at the beginning of the assessment year and various amounts were withdrawn from the bank earlier, which was subsequently deposited in the bank account is concerned, the ld.CIT(A) rejected all such claims made by the assessee on the ground that there was no such closing balance in the return filed for preceding assessment year and, therefore, the theory of opening cash balance cannot be accepted. So far as the gifts received from various family members are concerned, the ld.CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assesseee, for accepting the gift, is required to establish that the donor had the means and the gift was genuine and was out of natural love and affection. Further, surrounding circumstances, human probabilities and reality of human life are also to be considered for determining the genuineness of the gifts. According to him, the assessee, in the instant case, could not substantiate all these ingredients. Therefore, he rejected the claim of gift received by the assesseee from the va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rental income from gym equipments as "income from house property" and cannot again make the addition of the same which is double addition. Referring to page 39-45 of the paper book, the ld. counsel drew the attention of the Bench to the copy of the agreement between the assessee and M/s NIIT according to which the assessee had provided the gym equipments for hiring. Referring to clause 2 of the said agreement, the ld. counsel drew the attention of the Bench to the obligations and responsibilities of the assessee to NIIT where the responsibility of the assessee has been provided towards rental of the equipments and professional services. Referring to page 46 of the paper book, the ld. counsel drew the attention of the Bench to the submissions made before the CIT(A) wherein it was categorically stated that the assessee has received an amount of Rs. 3,30,000/- as rental of equipments on which TDS @ 2% has been deducted u/s 194A(a) and Rs. 4,20,000/- as professional receipt as trainer of gym. Therefore, making addition of the rental income of the equipments and again adding the rental income as income from house property amounts to double taxation of the same. 10. So far as the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ention of the Bench to the same and submitted that the AO himself in the remand report has accepted that the assessee had filed four affidavits in the shape of e-stamp purchased on 8th December, 2015 accepting the case of gift from parents, brother Shri Ravinder Singh and spouse Mrs. Sunita. He had also acknowledged that the proofs of the donors have been filed in the shape of Aadhaar, the bank account in respect of father Shri Shubhram Thakran and copy of income-tax return filed by brother Shri Ravinder Singh, declaring income of Rs. 1,89,520/-. Further, the assesseee had also filed cash book for the relevant period which was filed before the CIT(A) as additional evidence and which was filed before the AO. 11.1 The ld. counsel drew the attention of the Bench to para 2.5 and 2.6 of the remand report wherein the AO had given the datewise amount of gifts received by the assessee from his father. The AO himself had given a finding that cash of Rs. 2 lakh was withdrawn on 6th May, 2010 and Rs. 1,50,000/- on 17th May, 2010 which was given by the father to the assessee on 7th May, 2010 as gifts. Therefore, gifts from the father to the extent of Rs. 3,50,000/- is from the withdrawal fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee drew the attention to the withdrawal of cash of Rs. 3 lakh on 23rd June, Rs. 2 lakh on 2nd July, 2010, Rs. 2 lakh on 12th July, Rs. 4 lakh on 12th July and Rs. 2 lakh on 19th July from different bank account. Referring to page 23 of the paper book i.e., second page of the cash book, the ld. counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the deposit of cash on 21st July, 2010 amounting to Rs. 5 lakh. Similarly, Rs. 5 lakh deposited on 4th September, 2010, Rs. 90,000/- deposited on 6th September, 2010 with Oriental Bank of Commerce and Rs. 5 lakh deposited on 6th September, 2010 with Punjab National Bank. The ld. counsel, referring to various decisions submitted that merely because the cash was withdrawn earlier, which was subsequently deposited in the bank account after a few days cannot be a ground to reject the claim. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of S.R. Venkata Ratnam vs. CIT, 127 ITR 807, the ld. counsel drew the attention of the Bench to the following observations:- "There is some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the argument advanced by the revenue is, therefore, without an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l, (ITA No.-5660/Del/2012 dated 05-09-2014 ITAT Delhi); iii) Shri Anil Gupta vs. ITO (ITA No. 5645/Del/2013 Dated 31-01-2014 ITAT Delhi); iv) Anupama Chaudhary Vs. ITO, (ITA No. 4155/De!/2009 dated 27-12-2010 ITAT Delhi); v) ITO, Vs. Sh. Bhupinder Pal Singh Chawla, (ITA No. 4080/Del/2010 dated 25-02-2011 ITAT Delhi); vi) ACIT Vs Baldev Raj Charla & Ors. (121 TTJ 366 ITAT Delhi, dated 29.12.2008); vii) M/s Moongipa Investment Limited, vs. ITO (ITA No.2605/Del./2007 dated 05-08-2011 ITAT Delhi); viii) ITO vs. Hotel Derbey (ITA No.3413/Mum/2011 dated 20-07-2012 ITAT Mumbai); ix) ITO vs. Mr. Javed Ahmed Abdul (ITA No.8166/Mum/2010 dated 26.09.2012 ITAT-Mumbai); x) R.K. Dave vs. ITO (019 TTJ 094 - ITAT Jodhpur); xi) Shri Aasheesh M. Pittie vs. ITO (ITA No.1409/Hyd/2012 dated 11.01.2013, ITAT Hyderabad); xii) Shri Vikram Deokisan Sarda vs. CIT (ITA No.277/M/2012 dated 05.12.2012, ITAT Mumbai); xiii) Shri Surendra Singh vs. ITO (ITA No.650, 701/JP/2011 dated 31.01.2012, ITAT, Jaipur.). 16. So far as the deduction u/s 80C claimed by the assessee, the ld. counsel submitted that the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n account of cash deposit or on account of rental income is called for. 19. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. The first issued to be decided of the grounds of appeal is regarding the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 50,40,000/- made by the AO on account of cash deposit in bank account. A perusal of the assessment order shows that the AO made addition of the above amount due to non-submission of details during the course of assessment proceedings. Before the CIT(A), it was submitted that the above amount of Rs. 50,40,000/- was deposited out of cash withdrawal from the same bank amounting to Rs. 41,15,000/-, Rs. 9,25,000/- received as gifts from father, mother, brother and wife and an amount of Rs. 5,55,000/- was the opening cash balance. We find, the ld.CIT(A), after obtaining two remand reports from the AO and the rejoinder of the assessee to such remand reports, sustained the addition made by the AO. A perusal of the various details furnished by the assessee in the paper b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nk account and no material has been brought by the Revenue that such money is not available with the assessee, then, the AO is not justified in making the addition. We find, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of S.R. Venkata Ratnam vs. CIT, 127 ITR 807, has held as under: "There is some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the argument advanced by the revenue is, therefore, without any force. Once the petitioner-assessee disclosed the source as having come from the withdrawal made on a given date from a given bank, it was not for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to concern themselves with what the assessee did with that money, i.e., whether he had kept the same in his house or utilised the services of a bank by depositing the same." 22. Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36 (Del), has observed as under:- "The orders of Assessing Officer as well as Commissioner of Income Tax are completely silent as to for what purpose the earlier withdrawals would have been spent. As per the cash book maintained by the assessed, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was being spent for household expenses every mont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....above arguments of the ld. counsel. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has filed the affidavits of the donors who are parents, brother and spouse, respectively. They are not outsiders or unknown persons. No independent inquiry whatsoever was conducted by the AO either u/s 133 (6) or 131(1) of the Act. Since the gifts in the instant case are received from parents, brother and spouse, respectively and the father has withdrawn substantial cash amount from the bank before giving the gift of Rs. 5,75,000/- on various dates to his son and the gifts of Rs. 1,50,000/- from brother, Rs. 1 lakh from mother and Rs. 1 lakh from spouse are not huge amounts, therefore, doubting the genuineness of such gifts received from blood relations is not justified. We accordingly accept the source of Rs. 9,25,000/- deposited in the bank to be out of gifts. Thus, in nutshell, as against the addition of Rs. 50,40,000/- made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A), an amount of Rs. 49,85,000/- is accepted as explained. The order of the CIT(A) is modified to this extent and the ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed. 26. In the second ground, the assessee has challenged the ord....