TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 329
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that gift received from relative is not taxable as per section 56(2). 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in stating that the appellant surrendered her income when she could not explain the property acquire in her name. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant had explained about how she acquired the properties in her name, in the sworn statement recorded on 01.05.2017, during the post search proceedings. 6. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant had erroneously offered the gift received from her husband as her income. 7. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer ought to have assessed the income of the appellant correctly, when the error was pointed out by the appellant during the assessment proceedings. 8. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer herself had pointed out that the appellant had received gift from her husband and yet held that such gift is taxable in appellant's han....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The AO of searched person being satisfied with materials collected during the course of search, handed over those materials to the AO having jurisdiction over the assessee along with satisfaction thereon and the AO having jurisdiction, proceeded in accordance with provisions of Sec. 153C of the Act, and completed the assessment. In our considered view, there is no lacunae in initiation of proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act, because, as per provisions of Sec. 153C of the Act, the AO has to assess the undisclosed income, if any, of other person u/s. 153C of the Act. Although, the assessee has relied upon the decision of the ITAT, Bengaluru, Bench "B", in the case of Rajesh Kumar v. ACIT in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (P) Ltd., reported in [2016] 385 ITR 346, but on analysis of said judgment, we find that there was a passing reference on the issue. However, the issue before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court on assessment of undisclosed income in absence of incriminating material found as a result of search, when the assessments have been unabated/concluded as on the date of search. Therefore, we are of the con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ft received from her husband. The AO further noticed that although, the assessee claims to have received gift from her husband, but on verification of details, it was noticed that the so-called gift claims to have received from her husband, is in cash and thus, opined that the assessee has failed to prove the claim of gift with necessary evidences and thus, rejected the arguments of the assessee and assessed income as declared by the assessee amounting to Rs. 50,01,810/-. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed detailed written submissions on the issue which has been extracted at Para Nos. 5.1 to 5.11 of the Ld. CIT(A)'s order. The assessee had also taken support from Circular No. 14 (XL-35) of 1955 dated 11.04.1955 issued by the CBDT and argued that the Officers of the Department must not take advantage of ignorance of the assessee and should assess the income on the basis of materials, but not on the basis of admissions of the assessee. 6. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of various facts, rejected the argum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice to the income surrendered the appellant cannot go back with an afterthought scheme that it was gift from her husband. Had it been so it would have been mentioned in the first place? The return of the husband Sh. Ganesan for A.Y. 2015-16 that was otherwise due on 31/07/2016 has been filed on 30-10-2018, that is much after the date of search and the husband has not been filing his returns regularly. The gift transaction was not reported in the original return as the properties stated to be purchased from the gift were not reflected in the books of account. It is a clear cut case of afterthought. 6.3. The assessing officer has assessed the income that has been returned by the appellant in response to the notice. In that circumstance how could it be said that the assessing officer erred in considering the gift received by appellant from her husband as taxable. The amounts have been taxed on the basis of seized material confronted to her during the recording of her sworn statement. She could not explain those properties as the same were not reflected in her books and she surrendered that same as unaccounted income from other sources. She filed the return incorporating the same sur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee, out of Rs. 46,79,000/- sum of Rs. 39,75,000/- gift was received by cash and the assessee could not explain the same with necessary evidences including declaration of cash in hand for the relevant assessment year, wealth tax returns filed by her husband. The balance amount of Rs. 7 lakhs was also claimed to have been paid through proper banking channel, but no evidence was filed. Therefore, the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly rejected the claim of the assessee and their orders should be upheld. 9. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. Admittedly, during the course of search on 13.07.2016, a Sale Deed pertains to the assessee was found and seized in the residence of Shri S. Ravi. It is also an admitted fact that summons u/s. 131 of the Act was issued and a sworn statement was recorded form the assessee. She was asked to furnish the details of source for purchase of property and in response, the assessee admitted four immovable properties purchased by her are not reflected in the books of accounts and also she could not satisfactorily explain source for purchase of said properties....