TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1811
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aised by the assessee are as under: "1. For that the Order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is without jurisdiction, is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and in any case is opposed to the principles of equity, natural justice and fair play. 2. For that the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order of the Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction. 3. For that CIT(A) has confirmed the assessment completed u/s 143(3) is bad in law. 4. For that Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) in confirming the Order of the Assessing Officer in treating source for investments made in the property as unexplained under Section 68 of the Act 5. For that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ynaecologist, running a multi specialty hospital M/s. Vijaya Multispecialty Hospital in Dharamapuri. A survey was conducted u/s. 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on 21.03.2018 at the premises of assessee and noticed that the assessee has been generating income by renting out a medical shop for Rs.5,000/- per month and canteen for Rs.7,000/- per month and the same was not offered to tax from June, 2017 onwards. In the sworn statement dated 22.05.2018, the assessee has agreed to offer the rental income. When the assessee was asked to explain the source for an amount invested in construction of hospital, the assessee explained that one of the source of investment was Rs.35,00,000/- received from her mothe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee dated 15.03.2017 for Rs.12,40,000/- and 24.02.2017 for Rs.13,54,450/- for sale of agricultural land owned by them and for having received an amount from the prospective buyer. The assessee submitted that the allegation of the Assessing Officer that the assessee has not furnished the bank statements of the donors who demonstrated the withdrawal of money to give the cash gift of Rs.35,00,000/- was not correct, since the donors have received money as advance for sale of agricultural land by way of cash and hence, the question of demonstrating the cash withdrawal from the bank does not arise. Further, the assessee submitted that source of source cannot be asked by the Assessing Officer once the assessee has explained the nature and source....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hifted to Assessing Officer to make further enquiry. In the present case, the appellant failed to discharge primary onus of proving creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction. Therefore, I am of considered view that AO has rightly made addition of cash gifts u/s 68 of IT Act. Consequently, Grounds of appeal of appellant are Dismissed . 7.14 Though submissions are made w.r.t non-granting of standard deduction while computing income from house property, no ground has been raised by appellant to adjudicate the issue. Similarly, no ground has been raised challenging applicability of provisions of section 115BBE, hence not adjudicated. 8. As a result, appeal of Appellant is dismissed." Aggrieved by the order of the ld.C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Rs.35,00,000/- received during the year. Further, the ld.AR drew our attention to the amendment of explaining the source of source u/s. 68 of the Act is came into effect from 01.04.2023 ie., assessment year 2023-24 and therefore, the relevant assessment year of the assessee is 2018-19. The explanation of the source has already been made by the assessee before the lower authorities and addition is not sustainable under the law. In light of the above, the ld.AR summed up his arguments stating that the assessee has explained both the nature and source for Rs.35,00,000/- along with the identity of the persons and hence, the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act is not justified and prayed for deleting the same. 7. Per contra, the ld. DR stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and made an addition u/s. 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee explained that her mother is aged about 65 years, who was a practicing Doctor for more than 35 years in the medical profession and had filed income tax returns up to the date of the impugned assessment year declaring income regularly. Further, the assessee also had stated that her brother Mr. K. Vijay is also a professional software engineer working from past 12 years and filed his return of income up to the assessment year 2018-19, declaring income of more than Rs.12,00,000/- p.a.. Apart from the regular source of income from their respective profession and employment, the mother and the brother along with the assessee had entered into th....