TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 235
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso partner in the partnership firm viz. M/s.Royal Enterprise, Baroda. For the Asst.Year 2012-13, the assessee filed its return of income on 30.9.2012 declaring total income of Rs.2,20,390/- along with agriculture income of Rs.35,690/-. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny assessment and notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) was served upon the assessee and assessment was completed on 30.3.2015 assessing total income at Rs.19,59,220/- by making an addition of Rs.17,27,000/- under section 68 of the Act. The ld.AO has also made another addition of Rs.11,830/- on account of excess rent received by the assessee. As far as addition of Rs.17,27,000/- is concerned, the assessee claimed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the above disallowance. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee went in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 3. The ld.CIT(A) after hearing the case in detail, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee as follows: "4.3. First line of argument is addition u/s 68 of the Act is invalid as bank statement is not a books of account. I reminded the Ld. AR that this is a technical fault which can be cured by CIT(A) having coterminous power u/s 251 of the Act. The appellate authority has power to rectify such defects in order to protect loss of revenue. As a first appellate authority, my duty is to find fact and render justice to the appellant and also equally important to represent my own department on its own. [The Hon'ble Tribunal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... However, no response was received. Name, current address, contact, email ID, ITR for AY 2012-13 of the donor was also asked for. However, the Ld. AR hesitatingly bypassed the issue. Hence, genuineness of gift is still in doubt. 4.6. The third argument is source of cash from sale of agricultural land. First of all sale deed is unregistered and secondly, all the sale transactions pertain to FY 1999-2000 and FY 2008-09. Gift deed is dated 17/11/2011. Admittedly, cash was deposited in FY 2011-12. Clearly, time gap between date of sale and date of deposit happens to be more than 1000 days. The Ld. AR could not submit any reason as to what made the MAMA i.e. donor to keep cash in his hand for almost 3 years and later changed his mind t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed." 4. Aggrieved against the CIT(A)'s order, the assessee is before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: "1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the appellant's case in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in making an addition of Rs.17,27,000/- U/s 68 of the Act on the erroneous plea that sources of cash deposited in the bank is unexplained. 2. Both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts of the appellant's case in not appreciating the fact that no part of the cash deposited in the bank is unexplained. 3. The initiation of penalty proceedings U/s 271(1) (c) of the Act is not justified." 5. The ld.counsel for the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tal.Ankleshwar, Dist. Bharuch makes this declaration of gift. I am residing at above mentioned address since many years and am engaged in agricultural activities and owns agricultural lands in village Bharan. I had sold some agricultural lands which was either self-occupied or inherited. Details of the same is as under: Sr. No. Sale Date R.S.No.-At & Po Bharan Sale Value 1 26.07.1999 430 2,52,000/- 2 30.03.2008 402, 465, 797, 867 2,12,999/- 3 28.03.2008 735 2,12,000/- 4 30.03.2008 709, 842, 887 1,99,999/- 5 28.03.2008 723 2,42,000/- 6 28.03.2008 748 1,25,000/- Till date, I have sold land aggregating to Rs.11,64,698/-. The said amount I had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xplained before the lower authorities the instalments of amount of gift given by the donor and mode of payment. When the AO has requested to produce the donor as well as witnesses, the assessee failed to do so. However, it is noticed that the gift deed executed in the non-judicial stamp paper is dated as 17.11.2011, however, the same was executed on 31.3.2012, i.e. almost after 100 days. Similarly, the ld.CIT(A) has held that sale of agriculture land by the donor pertained to the financial year 1999- 2000 and 2008-09, but the assessee claimed that the copies were given during the financial year 2011-12, and there is a clear cut time gap of more than thousand days from the date of sale and the date of alleged donation made to the assessee. T....