Shri Mukesh Kumar Ranka, v. The ACIT 1(1),

ITSSA 61/IND/2007 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 6122716 RSA 2007
Bench Indore
Appeal Number ITSSA 61/IND/2007
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
Appellant Shri Mukesh Kumar Ranka,
Respondent The ACIT 1(1),
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 28-03-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 02-02-2011
Next Hearing Date 02-02-2011
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 07-05-2007
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. IT(SS)A NOS.58 & 59/IND/2007 A.YS. 2000-01 AND 2001-02 SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN UJJAIN PAN AJLPJ-3049E APPELLANT VS ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) UJJAIN RESPONDENT IT(SS)A NOS.60 AND 61/IND/2007 A.YS. 2000-01 AND 2001-02 MUKESH KUMAR RANKA UJJAIN PAN ABMPR-7841-P APPELLANT VS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) UJJAIN RESPONDENT APPELLANTS BY : SHRI RAVI SARDA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.K. MITRA O R D E R PER SHRI R.C. SHARMA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSES AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS DATED 1.3.2007 PASSED BY THE LEARN ED COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX (APPEALS). 2 2. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PER USED.. THE GRIEVANCE OF BOTH THE ASSESSES IN BOTH THE YEAR S UNDER CONSIDERATION IS IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF GIFT RE CEIVED DURING THE RESPECTIVE YEARS. THERE WAS SEARCH ACTION CONDUCTED ON THIS GROUP ON 25.9.03 DURING WHICH SEVERAL INCRIMINATING MATERIALS BELONGING TO THEIR GROUP WERE DISCOVERED. SINCE NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED FROM OUT OF THE SEIZED MA TERIALS LOOSENPAPERS ETC. ACCOUNTS WERE MADE UP ON COMPUTER AND SUBSTANTIAL DISCLOSURES MADE BY SHRI MUKESH KUMAR R ANKA AND SHRI SUSHIL JAIN. SHRI MUKESH KUMAR RANKA DISCLOSE D AROUND RS. 1.1 CRORE AND SHRI SUSHIL JAIN DISCLOSED AROUND RS. 14 LACS. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN AND HIS T OTAL FAMILY MEMBERS HAVE TAKEN TOTAL GIFT OF RS.18 82 500/- AND SHRI MUKESH RANKA HAS TAKEN GIFT OF RS.42 32 500/- IN THE NAMES OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. DURING THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION WH ILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153A THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSER VED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF GIFTS FROM DEVIDAS SATLA NI AND DEEPAK LALWANI AN NRI. IN TERMS OF THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE GIFTS WERE RECEIVED FROM PERSONS BELONGING TO SINDHI COMMUNITY HAVING NO RELATION WITH THE ASSESS EE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT A STUDY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI DEVIDAS SITLANI CLEARLY SHOWS THAT SUMS ARE DEPOSITED AND IMMEDIATELY PASSED ON AS GIFTS. ALL T HE TRANSACTIONS 3 ARE DONE JUST IN A MATTER OF 10 DAYS APRIL 13 TH TO 19TH. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ACCOUNT SHOWS A BALANCE OF JUST R S. 500/-.IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THE APPELLANT AND HIS PART NER SHRI MUKESH RANKA IN CERTAIN VENTURES GET GIFTS FROM THE SAME D ONORS SITLANI & LALWANI NRIS AT THAT POINT OF TIME AND THAT TOO WO RTH SAME AMOUNTS RS. 3.50 + 2 LACS EACH. IN THE CASE OF DON OR DEEPAK KUMAR LALWANI THE BANK ACCOUNT SHOWS DEBIT BALANCE ALL THROUGH. THE SOURCES AND THEIR CAPACITY TO MAKE SUCH HUGE GI FTS IS NOT ESTABLISHED. APPELLANT HAS NOT MADE ANY GIFTS TO T HEM. BOTH ARE NOT RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE FACTS GATHERED AN D THE INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT AMPLY ESTABLISH THAT THE GIFTS ARE NOT GENUINE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. ON ASKING B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE TH E DONOR FOR EXAMINATION. AS PER THE FAMILY HISTORY PREPARED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THE CREDITS APPEARING IN THEIR RESPECTIVE BANK STATEMEN T IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ADOPTING DEVICE OF T AKING GIFTS AND WAS SHOWING VERY MEAGER INCOME IN HIS RETURNS. ACCORDINGLY THE THEORY OF GIFT WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER INSOFAR AS GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT AND CREDIT WORTH INESS OF THE DONER WAS NOT ESTABLISHED. 3. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER 4 BY OBSERVING THAT THE SOURCES OF THE DONORS AND THE IR CAPACITY ARE NOT ESTABLISHED. THE BANK ACCOUNTS SHOW MEAGER FUN DS AND ALSO DEPOSITS BEING MADE JUST TO MAKE THE GIFTS. THE AP PELLANT WA DISCLOSING INCOME ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND IS INVOLVED IN REAL ESTATE BUSINESS WHICH GIVE SCOPE FOR UNEXPLAINED CASH AVAI LABILITY. NRI HAS NOT BEEN PRODUCED. DONORS ARE IN NO WAY RELATE D TO THE ASSESSEE. NO PHOTOS ESTABLISHING CLOSE LINKS BETWE EN DONOR AND DONEE EVER PRODUCED. NO GIFT IS EVER MADE TO THE D ONOR OR THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE AND SURROUND ING CIRCUMSTANCES ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE GIFTS ARE NOT GENUINE. BY PLANNING ONE CAN ALWAYS CREATE DOCUMENTS OF GIFT DE ED OBTAIN GIFT BY CHEQUE ETC. BUT THIS DOES NOT IN ANY MAKE THE GI FT A GENUINE ONE. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMM ISSIONER OF INCOMETAX (APPEALS) FOR BOTH THE YEARS BOTH THE ASSESSES ARE IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS CAREFU LLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FIN D FROM RECORD THAT BOTH THE ASSESSES WERE IN RECEIPT OF HUGE AMOU NTS OF GIFT EITHER IN THEIR OWN NAME OR IN THE NAMES OF THEIR F AMILY MEMBERS. THE DONOR WAS NOT RELATED WITH THE ASSESSEE IN ANY WAY. BOTH WERE BELONGING TO THE DIFFERENT COMMUNITY. THE CAP ACITY OF THE DONOR TO ADVANCE THE GIFTED AMOUNT WAS NOT ESTABLIS HED. EVEN 5 THOUGH DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED ONE OF THE DONORS DEEPAK LALWANI. HOWEVER ON THE BASIS OF HIS BANK STATEMENT THE LEARNED COMMISSION ER OF INCOMETAX (APPEALS) FOUND THAT HE WAS NOT CAPABLE T O GIVE THE ALLEGED AMOUNT OF GIFT. THUS THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE DONOR WAS NOT ESTABLISHED. VARIOUS FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WITH REGARD TO GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT AND THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE DONORS COULD NOT BE DISLODGED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARI NG BEFORE US. THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE AS PER MATERIAL ON RECORD WHICH DO NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE. 6. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES ON 28 TH MARCH 2011. (JOGINDER SINGH) ( R.C.SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 28 TH MARCH 2011 COPY TO: APPELLANT RESPONDENT CIT CIT(A) DR GU ARD FILE