TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 1408
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of Income Tax has erred on facts & in law in directing the AO for doing verification/investigations on cash gifts of Rs. 10 lacs received by assessee ignoring that after making such verification/investigation, the AO in framing the assessment order u/s 143(3), made addition of Rs. 3.50 lacs. 3. The assessee craves to amend, alter and modify any of the grounds of appeal. 4. Necessary cost be allowed to the assessee. 2 The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the initiation of proceedings under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' in short) and in directing the Assessing Officer to make verification/investigation on cash gifts of Rs. 10 Lac. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 22/07/2009 declaring an income of Rs. 1,73,140/-. The assessment, however, was framed under section 143(3) of the Act at an income of Rs. 5,23,140/- after making addition of Rs. 3,50,000/- on account of gifts received by the assessee. Thereafter, the ITO Ward-2(2), Kota vide letter No. 81 dated 11/04/2011 proposed the action under section 263 of the Act on the following points decided by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udes Smt. Kanchan Bai. It means only ½ bigha of land is belonging to Smt. Kanchan Bai which is transferred in the name of 7 persons on 20-08-2009 i.e. during the F.Y. 2009-10 whereas the assessment relates to the F.Y. 2008-09 and Shri Kalyan Mal, husband of Smt. Kanchan Bai died during the F.Y. 2007-08. As per declaration of gift made by Smt. Kanchan Bai, the date of gift is mentioned as 02/05/2008. Thus, it is clear that the rent of agriculture land would have been received by Smt. Kanchan Bai only for one year that too for ½ bigha of land which may be to the extent of Rs. 2 to 3 thousand only and that too could have been used by her for her own requirement. From the facts discussed above, it crystal clear that Smt. Kanchan_Bai appears to have no cash balance with her except balance available in her bank account. It is entirely a cooked story made by the assessee to save himself from the net of income tax and save from tax liability by adopting route of gifts being undisclosed income earned by the assessee. It is pertinent to mention here that Central Public School, Vigyan Nagar, Kota belongs to the assessee and his family and funds generated there ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has received income for one year after death of her husband which may be to the extent of Rs. 2-3 thousand only & that too has been used by for her own requirement. iii) The Central Public School, Vigyan Nagar, Kota belong to assessee & his family & funds generated there from must have channelized through these gifts. With references to above we beg to submit as under for your kind consideration :- (i) That we have submitted explanation along with necessary documents in support of genuiness of gifts of Rs. 10 lacs received by the assessee from following persons before the Ld A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings. Which have been considered by the Ld A.O. while finalizing assessment for the above years. Shri V.D. Sharma (father) 200000 Smt. Sandhya Sharma (Mother) 200000 Smt. Kanchan Bai (Grand Mother) 600000 Total Rs. 1000000 (ii) The donars Shri V.D. Sharma & Smt Sandhya Sharma have issued bearer cheques in the name of Shri Priyank Sharma for Rs. 182000/- & Rs. 168000/- respectively for cash withdrawal. It is evident from the copy of Bank Statement of assessee (Priyank Sharma) submitted before the Ld A.O.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....termed as erroneous & prejudicial order as the same has been passed after considering all the facts & information & application of mind after proper enquiry on the issues involved in assessee's case. We rely on following decisions of various appellate authorities (copies enclosed) in support of our contention: - a) CIT V/s. Ratilam Coal Ash Co (1988)171 ITR 141 (MP) b) CIT V/s. Mehrotrta Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) c) CIT V/s. Parameshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) d) Paul Mathews & Sons Vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) e) CIT Vs. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) f) CIT Vs. Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) g) CIT Vs. J.P. Goel (HUF) (2001) 247ITR 555 (Cal) h) CIT Vs. Amalgamations Ltd (1999) 238 ITR 963 (Mad) i) CIT Vs. Macneill Magore Ltd (1998) 232 ITR 945 (Cal) j) CIT Vs. Ganpat Ram Bishnoi (2008) 296 ITR 292 (Raj) k) Gyan Chand Gupta Vs CIT ITAT, Jaipur 'B' Bench (2011) 135 TTJ (Jp) (U0) 1 Further as the issues involved in assessment order U/s 143 (3) dt 27/12/10 has been the subject of appeal filed before the Ld CIT (A), Kota the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essing Officer to revise the order dated 27/12/2010 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, which was against the plain language of section 263 of the Act because the suggestion of the Assessing Officer cannot be a basis for revision of the assessment order. Reliance was placed on the following case laws:- 1) Rajiv Arora VS. CIT (2011) 131 ITD 58 (Jp.) (Trib.) 2) Jheendu Ram Vs. CIT (2011) 7 ITR 463 (Lucknow) (Trib.) 3) Ms. Bina Indra Kumar Vs. ITO (2012) 137 ITD 238/80 DTR 180 (Mum.) (Trib.) 4) CIT Vs New Delhi Television Ltd. (2013) 94 DTR 21 (Del.) (HC) 5) CIT Vs. Amit Corpn. (2013) 213 Taxman 19 (Guj.) (HC) (Mag.) 6) CIT Vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. (2011) 341 ITR 166 (Del.) (HC) 7) Pradeep Bandhu Vs. CIT (2013) 81 DTR 289 (Jd.) (Trib.) 8) Manish Kumar Vs. CIT 134 ITD 27/17 ITR 324 (Indore) (Trib.) 7. In his rival submissions, learned D.R. strongly supported the order passed by the Ld. CIT and further submitted that the Assessing Officer did not make proper enquiries while passing the assessment order. Therefore, the assessment order was not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of the rev....