TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (10) TMI 144
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate Tribunal was right in upholding the addition of Rs. 53,609 against the declared income of Rs. 16,000 which was recorded income in the books of account and the date of filing of return of income was due after March 31, 1996 ? (ii) Whether the amounts of gifts received by the minor sons duly accounted for in the books amounting to Rs. 88,840 and where interest earned on the same was duly disclosed and assessed in the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 in the hands of the applicant under section 64(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could still remain undisclosed as per the provisions of section 158B(b), if no, then whether the addition, if any, could be made under section 143(3) under such circumstances and not under the provision of C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e seized. Notice dated February 1, 1996, under section 158BC of the Act was given to the assessee, requiring filing of return. The assessee filed return on April 23, 1996. The assessment was made which was challenged by the assessee. Re : Question No. (i) 4. The finding of the Tribunal on this question is as under : "6. Now reverting to the facts of the instant case, we find that in this case a search was conducted on November 23, 1995. From the expression "block period" and "the previous years" appearing in section 158B(a) the period mentioned in the words "block period" means the period of 10 previous years relevant to 10 assessment years preceding the previous year in which the search was conducted. The "previous year" further i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the income at Rs. 16,000 for the assessment year 1996-97 up to the date of search, i.e., November 23, 1995, when M/s. Gian Agro in their profit and loss account has shown the net profit at Rs. 53,609 we hold that the assessing authority was fully justified in taking the undisclosed income at Rs. 53,609 instead of Rs. 16,000, as disclosed by the assessee, for the current assessment year 1996-97 as on November 23, 1995. The order of the Assessing Officer, in this regard, is upheld and ground No. 6 of the appeal of the assessee is rejected." 5. For the above conclusion, the Tribunal relied upon the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in N. R. Paper and Board Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [1998] 234 ITR 733 and the judgment of the Kerala High Court in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ability of both these sections is involved. We are of the opinion that since the Assessing Officer found this amount credited as having been received as gift in the bank pass book of the assessee which could not be termed as account books of the assessee. So, for the genuine gift, this amount could be added under section 69 of the Income-tax Act and has been rightly done so by the Assessing Officer because in the account books of M/s. Gian Agro, this amount has been simply credited as capital of the firm and not credited as having been received as gift amount nor any enquiry has been conducted in the assessment year by the Assessing Officer during the course of regular assessment as to how this amount has been credited and from which source....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng mentioning or non-mentioning of the sections in which the addition is made would not vitiate the liability of the assessee to pay the tax under income-tax proceedings." 10. The question of genuineness of a gift has been gone into by this court, inter alia, in Jaspal Singh v. CIT [2007] 290 ITR 306 (P & H), I. T. Appeal No. 256 of 2006, decided on September 15, 2006. It was observed (page 309) : "It is well-settled that mere identification of donor and showing the movement of gift amount through banking channel is not enough to prove genuineness of the gift. The assessee was required to establish that the donor had the means and the gift was genuine, for natural love and affection. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgmen....