I.T.A. No. 1249/Mum/2015. Case: Khalil Ahmed Tanwar Vs ITO - 8(2)(2). ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | I.T.A. No. 1249/Mum/2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: S.C. Tiwari and Rutuja N. Pawar, Advs. and For Respondents: Rajesh Kumar Yadev, Advs. |
| Judges | D.T. Garasia, Member (J) and Ramit Kochar, Member (A) |
| Issue | Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 133(6), 143(2), 143(3), 43(5), 68, 69A |
| Judgement Date | April 10, 2017 |
| Court | ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
Ramit Kochar, Member (A), (Mumbai Bench)
-
This appeal, filed by the assessee, being ITA No. 1249/Mum/2015 is directed against the appellate order dated 1st December, 2014 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 17, Mumbai (hereinafter called "the CIT(A)"), for the assessment year 2010-11, the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A) arising from the assessment order dated 1st March, 2013 passed by learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter called "the AO") u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter called "the Act").
-
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in memo of appeal filed with the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter called "the tribunal") read as under:-
1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law, ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in upholding the addition u/s. 68 of Rs. 10,00,000/- gift received by the appellant from his father.
2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law, ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in upholding the addition u/s. 69A of Rs. 32,66,411/- to the income of the appellant.
3. Without prejudice to the ground No. 1 & 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law, ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in not considering that ld. AO has made an addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- gift money to the income of the appellant assuming that Rs. 32,66,411/- shown in the appellant's father's account is also the appellant's money, effectively adding the same Rs. 10,00,000/- to the income of the appellant twice.
4. That on the facts and in the circumstance of the case of the appellant and in law, ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred upholding the addition u/s. 68 of Rs. 2,60,000/- loan received by the appellant from his brother.
5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law, ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 9,94,313/- as undisclosed income of the appellant.
6. That the impugned order being contrary to law, material on record and facts of the case may kindly be set aside, amended and modified in the light of the grounds of appeal enumerated above and the appellant be granted such reliefs as is called for on the facts and in the circumstance of the case of the appellant and in law.
7. That each of the grounds of appeal enumerated above is without prejudice to each other and independent of one another.
-
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is Director in M/s. LIS (India) Construction Co. Private Limited. During the course of assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 143(2) of 1961 Act, the A.O. observed that in the personal capital account of the assessee, the assessee has credited gift of Rs. 10 lacs received from his father, Shri Liyaquet Ali Tanwar. The assessee was asked to prove the genuineness of the said gift transaction and capacity of the donor. The assessee filed a copy of confirmation of the gift and bank statement of the donor i.e. his father Mr. Liyaquet Ali Tanwar. The donor had Saving Bank-NRE A/c No. 50099 maintained with Indian Overseas Bank. The A.O. observed from the bank statement that it showed a payment debit of Rs. 10 lacs towards the assessee on 6th October, 2009 but just ten days before advancing of this gift, the bank account showed receipt credit of Rs. 32,66,411/- with the narration 'RTGS Khalil Ahmed'. The said 'Khalil Ahmed' was confirmed by the counsel of the assessee to be the assessee only.
The assessee was asked by the AO to file details of all bank accounts maintained by the assessee jointly or singly. The assessee submitted that he held only four bank accounts, the two accounts with Indian Overseas Bank and IClCI Bank respectively which were claimed by the assessee to be operative. While the NRE a/c held with the same Indian Overseas Bank and an account with Bank of Baroda were claimed by the assessee to be inoperative. The AO observed...
To continue reading
Request your trial