TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 588
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xplain the case. The same be considered and addition be deleted. b) The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not accepting the plea of the new authorized representative of the assessee with regard to the date of hearing. The same be considered and an opportunity be given. 2. a) Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in not considering the amount of Rs. 4,39,07,574/- being inheritance from his father by way of will. The same be considered and addition be deleted b) The Ld. CIT (A) has failed to consider that the assessee's father was a renowned painter and hence his credibility could not be doubted. The same be considered and addition be deleted. c) The Ld. CIT (A) as well as the AO has failed to consider that the amount i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... all supporting evidences and bank accounts. Simultaneously, AO issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act to manager of Standard Chartered Bank, Fort Branch, Mumbai calling upon the bank to furnish a copy of statement of account of the assessee No.23110423830. The AO on the basis of the said account came to a conclusion that on 16.05.2012 assessee has deposited a sum of Rs. 4,39,07,574/- in his account. On 31.03.2016 the authorized representative of the assessee furnished a letter submitting therein that Rs. 4,39,07,574/- was received from Estate of Mr. Maqbool Fida Husain. However, no supporting evidences were filed. The AO also noted that on 23.03.2016 the authorized representative filed a certificate from Mr. Mustafa Husain from Duba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... letter of confirmation dated 10.03.2016 from Mr. Mustafa Husain, Dubai who is one of the three sons of late Shri M.F. Husain stating that a sum of Rs. 4,39,07,574/- was given to Mr. Shafat Makul Husain by his father late Shri M.F. Husain as a part of inheritance share to the assessee vide letter dated 23.03.2016. The copy of the letter dated 23.03.2016 was also filed before the AO which is attached at page No.8 and confirmation at page No.9. However, the AO wrongly proceeded on the assumption that the said amount is unexplained cash credit on the ground that no details of the bank account from where the amount was remitted was furnished and thus identity, genuineness and creditworthiness were not proved. The Ld. A.R. while referring to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing remitted the amount through banking channel. The Ld. A.R. submitted that it is not the case of the Revenue that cash has been deposited in the assessee's bank account. The money has been received by way of foreign remittance in the bank account with proper inward foreign remittance. Thus the Ld. A.R. submitted that assessee has discharged onus cast upon it and the authorities below have failed to make any further investigation/inquiry to controvert the facts brought on record by the assessee. Finally, the Ld. A.R. submitted that in view of these facts the order passed by the AO as well as CIT(A) are erroneous. The Ld. A.R. also submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has affirmed the addition but under different section under section 69A of the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t from father whereas before the Ld. CIT(A) his stand was changed that this was received by way of inheritance from Estate of late Shri MF Husain father of the assessee. The Ld. D.R. also submitted that mere remittance by banking channel would not prove the genuineness and creditworthiness as contemplated under section 68 of the Act. Referring to the evidences furnished by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) in the form of will, letter of confirmation of Mr. Mustafa Husain certifying that amount was remitted in pursuance of will of late Shri MF Husain as share of inheritance would not prove the genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of a person who remitted the money into the assessee's bank account. The Ld. D.R., while strongly controve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s placed by the assessee before the Revenue Authorities are unproved or false. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Apex Court in the case of Indo-Aden Salt Manufacturing & Trading Co. (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (supra) in which it has been held that where the assessee has disclosed primary facts then the burden shifts to the Revenue. In the instant case also the assessee has filed all the necessary evidences before the authorities below. However, no further investigation was carried out. In the case of Atmaram J Manghirmalani (HUF) vs. ITO (supra) it has been held that where cash gifts were given by account payee cheques and donar filed affidavits confirming the gifts then in absence of any evidence in the possessing of the dep....