Case Law Details
Kamlesh Parwani Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
In this case Assessee miserably failed to prove the genuineness of the stated gifts. It is evident from the order of lower authorities that the assessee could only prove the identity of the donor but failed to establish the creditworthiness and genuineness of the gifts with cogent material. The donors had no relationship with the assessee and despite that huge gifts were received by the assessee as well as his other family members during impugned AY. Therefore we have no hesitation in confirming the stand of Ld. first appellate authority. 6. Resultantly, the assessee’s appeal stands dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:-
1. The captioned appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2005-06 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-18 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No.CIT(A)-18/T-62/ITO 19(3) (2)/10-11 dated 14/01/2013 qua confirmation of certain addition on account of cash credit u/s 68 for Rs.4 Lacs. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Income-tax Officer 19(3)(2), Mumbai AO] u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28/12/2007. None has appeared for assessee and no adjournment application is on record. Left with no option, we proceed to dispose-off the same on the basis of material available on record and after hearing Ld. Departmental Representative [DR].
2.1 Facts in brief are that the assessee being resident individual engaged in manufacturing and trading of chairs was assessed for impugned AY at Rs.14,27,570/- as against returned income of Rs.6,27,570/- filed by the assessee on 25/10/2005. The solitary issue involved in the appeal is addition u/s 68 for Rs. 4 Lacs.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
