AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SI.
No.","Name from whom amount
received",Amount,"Capital a/c
as on","Nature of
payment","Date of
reply of the
A/R
1.,"Sh. Narayan Lal, Choudhary","27,00,000/-",,"Unsecured
Loans",16.01.2013
2.,"Sh. Narayan Lal, Choudhary","27,00,000/-",31.03.2011,Gift,11.09.2013
3.,"Sh. Narayan Lal,
Choudhary
Sh. Narayan Lal,
Choudhary","9,00,000/-
14,00,000/-","31.03.2011
31.03.2011","Gift
Unsecured
loan   Â
    for
Kekri Land","28.10.2013
28.10.2013
4.,"Narayan         Â
           La
HUF","24,00,000/-
l,",31.03.2011,Gift by HUF,28.10.2013
flow statement submitted by the assessee or not?,,,,,
The assessee contends that he is regularly filing his Return of Income-tax (ROI) from AY 2010-11 declaring salary income and income from other,,,,,
sources and both of his parents Sh. Narayan Lal (father), Smt. Manbhari Devi (Mother) are also regular income tax assessee. It is also submitted that",,,,,
the source of income of assessee’s father Sh. Narayan Lal is from pension/interest. The source of income of the Narayan Lal HUF is from,,,,,
agriculture whereas the source of income of his mother Smt. Manbhari Devi is from dairy, capital gain and income from other sources. During the",,,,,
assessment proceeding, AO noticed that as per AIR Information, there is a cash deposit of Rs. 25,46,000/-= in ICICI Bank account. On further,",,,,,
enquiry, it is noticed that there is a total deposit of Rs.37,03,900/- in assessee’s various bank accounts which is unexplained. AO further observed",,,,,
that assessee’s claim cash gift of Rs.9lacs received from his father Sh. Narayan Lal, and cash gift of Rs.24 lacs received from Narayan Lal",,,,,
HUF, is a concocted story of the purported gift and therefore AO considered the same is as unsecured loan accepted in cash in violation of section",,,,,
269SS of the Act. AO has examined on oath of Sh Narayan Lal, father of the assessee but did not arrive at any adverse finding, and also has not",,,,,
made any reference in this regard in the assessment order. Assessee has also submitted that all the cash deposits made in bank accounts are,,,,,
verifiable from the cash flow statements filed before the AO and in the cash flow statement, source of Rs.9,00,000/is explained gift received from",,,,,
father Sh Narayan Lal Choudhary and Rs.24,00,000/-= as gift received from Narayan Lal HUF. Assessee also explained the source of money of Rs.",,,,,
9,00,000/= given by father as withdrawals from Savings Bank A/c from SBBJ and source of immediate deposit in SBBJ a/c was sale proceeds of land",,,,,
sold for Rs.11,00,000. Similarly, source of HUF was explained as receipts from regular agricultural income, realization of debtors and past savings and",,,,,
in suport of the same, assessee filed income tax returns from AY 2006-07 onwards. Further, in the statement of affairs as on 31.03.2007, debtors of",,,,,
Rs. 23,00,000/- was shown which was reduced to Rs.1,06,320/- as on 31.03.2011. To support his contentions, assessee has also filed assessment",,,,,
orders of M/s Narayan Lal HUF for 2007-08 wherein debtors to the extent of Rs 17,65,000/- was treated unexplained.",,,,,
In view of facts narrated above it is seen that source of cash deposits made in bank accounts are fully explained from the cash flow statement and,,,,,
donors have got sufficient funds in their hands for providing gift to the assessee. Even AO has on the basis of enquiries conducted could not point out,,,,,
any defects in the evidences filed.,,,,,
7. He contended that CIT (A) has misconstrued the complete question inasmuch as the assessee himself in his own statement which are reflected,,,,,
as hereinabove has changed his stand from time to time. Initially he has shown unsecured loans but thereafter he has shown gift. Again on,,,,,
28.10.2013 he has admitted the amount as gift of Rs.9 lac and another Rs. 14 lac unsecured loan and then again 24 lac as gift by the HUF. However,",,,,,
the Tribunal while considering the matter has only reproduced the finding of CIT (A) in para 3.2.,,,,,
8. Counsel for the respondent has supported the order of CIT (A) and the Tribunal and contended that in view of concurrent finding of both the,,,,,
authorities, the transaction of gift is not covered under Section 269SS. In that view of the matter, having benefit of doubt, the finding arrived at by CIT",,,,,
(A) and the Tribunal is not required to be disturbed.,,,,,
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.,,,,,
10. While considering the matter, the CIT (A) has rightly observed that this is not a gift and taking into consideration that the donor has a sufficient",,,,,
fund and that is not in dispute that the amount which has been paid by the HUF was not having sufficient fund. In that view of the matter, we are",,,,,
confirming the order of CIT (A) and the Tribunal.,,,,,
11. Thus, the issues are answered in favour of assessee against the Department.",,,,,
The appeals stand dismissed.,,,,,