MANISH DANGAYACH, Jaipur v. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 493/JPR/2013 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 49323114 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN ADUPD5283D
Bench Jaipur
Appeal Number ITA 493/JPR/2013
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant MANISH DANGAYACH, Jaipur
Respondent ITO, Jaipur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 10-07-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 10-07-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 10-07-2013
Next Hearing Date 10-07-2013
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 03-05-2013
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH SMC JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI B.R. JAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 493/JP/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 PAN NO. ADUPD5283D MANISH DANGAYACH VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER F-1 SHANTI KUNJ MAJOR SHAITAN WARD 4(1) JAIPUR . SINGH COLONY SHASTRI NAGAR JAIPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.L. PODDAR RESPONDENT BY : MS. ANITA RITESH DATE OF HEARING : 10.07.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.07.2013 ORAL ORDER PER B.R. JAIN A.M. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20 TH FEBRUARY 2013 OF LD. CIT (APPEALS) II JAIPUR RAISES THE SOLITARY GROUND AS UNDER :- UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2 00 000/- U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT CONS IDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD INFORMATION FROM INVESTIGATION WING OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THAT THIS ASSESSE E HAD RECEIVED AN ACCOMMODATION GIFT OF RS. TWO LACS VIDE DEMAND DRAFT NO. 485172 D ATED 4/12/2002 FROM SRI RAMNIK AGARWAL. THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATE D ACCORDINGLY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISCREET ENQUIRY FROM THE BANK FROM WHERE THE SAID DRAFT OF RS. TWO LACS WAS PURCHASED. THE ENQUIRY REVEALED THAT THE DRAFT WAS NOT MADE/PURCHASED FROM THE ASSESSEES OWN ACCO UNT/RESOURCES. THE COPY OF BANK 2 ACCOUNT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE REVEALED BANK ENT RY OF WITHDRAWAL OF RS. TWO LACS FROM DONORS ACCOUNT. THE DRAFT WAS FOUND TO HAVE B EEN PURCHASED FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF ONE M/S BASANT AGENCIES WITH STATE BANK OF PATIALA DELHI AND NOT FROM DONORS BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OPINED THAT THE GIFT OF RS. TWO LACS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FAKE AND FORGED. SUPPOR TING EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY HIM ARE ALSO FOUND TO HAVE BEEN FAKE AND FORGED. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD SURRENDERED THE AMOUNT OF GIFT TO BE ASSESSED AS HIS OWN INCOME THE ASSES SING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO MAKE ADDITION OF RS. TWO LACS AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURC ES AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AT AN INCOME OF RS. 3 41 160/- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 1 41 160/-. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) UPHOLDING THE FINDINGS REACHED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND BEING OF THE VIEW THAT M/S BASANT AGENCIES HAD NO C LUE WITH THE DONOR TOOK THAT THE SAID RECEIPT OF RS. TWO LACS IS NOT A GENUINE TRANSACTIO N. SHE THEREFORE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 4. ASSESSEES COUNSEL SHRI S.L. PODDAR CHALLENGES T HE ADDITION ON THE GROUND AS AFORESAID. IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT DURING THE CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS IN SUPPO RT OF GIFT RECEIVED FROM SHRI RAMNIK AGARWAL. (I) COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI RAMNIK AGARWAL REGARD ING HAVING MADE THE GIFT WITH THE NARRATION IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT GIFT WAS M ADE VIDE DD NO. 485172 DATED 04/12/2002 DRAWN ON STATE BANK OF PATIALA NE W DELHI. (II) A COPY OF THE GIFT DEED DATED 06/12/2002 IN SU PPORT OF THE GIFT MADE OF RS. 2 00 000/- WITH THE NARRATION IN THE GIFT DEED THAT GIFT WAS MADE VIDE DD NO. 485172 DATED 04/12/2002 DRAWN ON STATE BANK OF PATIALA NEW DELHI. 3 (III) A COPY OF THE RETURN OF THE DONOR RAMNIK AGAR WAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 FILED IN FORM NO. 2D ON 31/07/2002 WITH INC OME TAX OFFICER WARD-34(2) NEW DELHI. (IV) COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF WEALTH TAX RETURN F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. (V) COPY OF PAN CARD HAVING PAN NO. AAEPA6703E OF S HRI RAMNIK AGARWAL. (VI) COPY OF RASAN CARD OF SHRI RAMNIK AGARWAL SHOW ING HIS RESIDENT OF LAXMIPURI DELHI. IN THE FACE OF THE AFORESAID DOCU MENTS THE AMOUNT OF GIFT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE STOOD ESTABLISHED AS GENUINE. COIES OF THESE DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE ON PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 3 TO 8. HOWEVER THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER CAUSED ENQUIRIES FROM THE STATE BANK OF PATIALA WHICH DISCLOSED THAT THERE WAS NO WITHDRAWAL IN THE HANDS OF SHRI RAMNIK AGARWAL AND IN FACT THE DRAFT WAS FROM THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI MAHESH GARG PROPRIETOR BASANT AGENCIES HAVING HIS ACCOUNT IN TH E SAME BANK OF PATIALA DARIAGANJ BRANCH AND BROTHER OF RAMNIK AGR AWAL. SHRI RAMNIK AGARWAL HAS GIVEN ADVANCE TO HIS BROTHER EARLIER WH ICH HE RECEIVED BANK FROM HIM IN THE SHAPE OF DD IN THE NAME OF THE ASSE SSEE MANISH DANGAYACH FOR RS. 2 00 000/-. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE ENQUIRIES MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ESTABLISHED THE FOLLOW ING. (A) THE DD NO. 485172 DATED 04/12/2002 IS DRAWN ON STATE BANK OF PATIALA NEW DELHI. THUS THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND T HE GIFT DEED ARE CORRECT. IN THE GIFT DEED AND THE AFFIDAVIT THE DONOR HAD AN ASSERTION TO THE ABOVE EFFECT. IT WAS NOT MENTIONED BY THE DONOR THAT THE DRAFT WAS OUT OF THE FUNDS OF HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THEREFORE THE AFFIDAVIT AND THE GIFT DEED HOLD GOOD. (B) THE ENQUIRIES MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE DRAFT WHICH HAS ORIGINATED FROM TH E ACCOUNT OF BASANT AGENCIES PROPRIETOR MAHESH GARG. THIS CLEARLY FURT HER ESTABLISHES THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT INTRODUCED HIS OWN AMOUNT IN THE S HAPE OF DRAFT. IN FACT SHRI RAMNIK AGARWAL HAS RECEIVED BACK HIS EARLIER A DVANCE LOAN FROM SHRI 4 MAHESH GARG. AS FAR AS THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED I F THE ASSESSEE HAD KNOWN THE TRUTH OF THE ORIGIN OF THE DRAFT FROM THE ACCOUNT OF THE BASANT AGENCIES HE WOULD NOT HAVE CONCEALED THE FACT AS I T WAS NOT GOING TO HARM HIM IN ANYWAY. BECAUSE IN EITHER SITUATION THE AMOU NT WAS COMING FROM A DIFFERENT PERSON AND AS SUCH IT COULD NOT BE HELD T HAT THE AMOUNT BELONG TO HIM. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ULTIMATELY WHAT IS TRUE S HOULD PREVAIL. IN THIS CASE THE TRUTH IS THAT THE AMOUNT OF DD RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FROM HIS OWN FUNDS BUT THE SAME HAS COME FROM M/S BASANT AG ENCIES. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT ASSESSEE PASSED ON MONEY FOR OBTAINING THE DEMAND DRAFT OF GIFT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DO NOT HOLD GOOD DESPITE THAT TH E DEMAND DRAFT OF GIFT DID NOT COME FROM SHRI RAMNIK AGARWAL. IN VIEW OF T HIS IT IS PLEADED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. (C) IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO DEFAUL T OF THE ASSESSEE ON ANY ACCOUNT. HAVING SUBMITTED THE AFFIDAVIT THE GIFT D EED THE PAN THE COPY OF RETURN THE ASSESSEE DISCHARGED HIS PRIMARY ONUS REGARDING THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM SHRI RAMNIK AGARWAL. FURTHER THE AMOU NT HAS BEEN RECEIVED AS DRAFT FROM STATE BANK OF PATIALA DARIA GANJ BRANCH NEW DELHI. IN CASE THERE IS ANY DISCREPANCY THE REVENUE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN ACTION IN THE HANDS OF SHRI RAMNIK AGARWAL. (D) NOR THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER NOT THE LD. CIT(A ) DID NOT SOUGHT ANY CLARIFICATION REGARDING ISSUANCE OF DRAFT FROM THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI MAHESH GARG WHO RETURNS HIS LOAN TAKEN FROM SHRI RAMNIK AG ARWAL. IF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ANY DOUBT THEY SHOULD CONFR ONT THE FACT FROM THE ASSESSEE ON CONDUCT ENQUIRY FROM SHRI MAHESH GARG O R SHRI RAMNIK AGARWAL WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE IN THIS CASE. THERE FORE THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE CONTENDS THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SURRENDERED THE AFORESAID RECEIPT OF RS. TWO LA CS AS HIS INCOME. THE ENQUIRIES MADE BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT REVEALED THAT THE MONE Y HAS NOT COME FROM THE ALLEGED 5 DONORS ACCOUNT. IT WAS MERELY AN ACCOMMODATION ENT RY. THE ASSESSMENT SO MADE THEREFORE NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE. 6. HEARD PARTIES WITH REFERENCE TO MATERIAL ON RECO RD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE APPELLANT WITH THE FINDINGS IN ENQU IRY PROCEEDINGS JUMPED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE GIFT OF RS. TWO LACS RECEIVED B Y THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED THEREWITH ARE FAKE AND FORGED. THIS WAS NEITHER PROPER NOR JUSTIFIED ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO JUMP TO SUC H A CONCLUSION. HAD AN OPPORTUNITY BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN IT MIGHT HAV E BEEN POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO RECONCILE INCONSISTENCIES OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A ND ALSO TO SHOW THAT THE DOCUMENTS SUPPORTING THE GIFT ARE GENUINE AND NOT FORGED BY H IM. THE APPELLANT HOWEVER HAD MADE A SURRENDER OF THE RECEIPT OF AFORESAID AMOUNT OF R S. TWO LACS TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS FAC T IS NOT DENIED BY HIM NEITHER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) NOR BEFORE ME AT THE TIME OF ARGUMEN T OF THE APPEAL. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS MADE A BONAFIDE SURRENDER OF THE AFORESAID RECE IPT OF RS. TWO LACS AS HIS INCOME ESSENTIALLY THEREFORE THIS AMOUNT WAS TO BE TREAT ED AS ASSESSEES INCOME FROM THE OTHER SOURCES. THE SAME THEREFORE DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INDULGENCE BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE GROUND IN APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS REJE CTED AND THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED AS ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN PRESENCE OF PARTIES ON 10/07/2013. SD/- (B.R. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED : 10.07.2013 * RANJAN 6 COPY FORWARDED TO :- 1. SHRI MANISH DANGAYACH JAIPUR 2. THE ITO WARD 4(1) JAIPUR. 3. THE CIT (A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE D/R GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 493/JP/2013) BY ORDER AR ITAT JAIPUR.