Case Law Details
Atul H. Patel Vs I.T.O (ITAT Ahmedabad)
The amount of cash was deposited in 2 instalments. A sum of Rs. 2,18,000 was deposited on 18 May 2011 whereas the balance amount of ₹9.25 lakhs was deposited on 7 October 2011. There was mismatch of the time in the amount of cash deposits in the bank out of the gift received by the assessee. Therefore it was doubted by the revenue that the amount of cash deposits is not out of the amount of gift received by the assessee. However, we note that the assessee has discharged his onus by submitting the details (including revised gift deed) that the cash was deposited out of the gift amount. Now the onus shifts upon the Revenue to disprove the contention of the assessee based on the documentary evidence. But we find that there was no contrary evidence brought on record by the revenue suggesting that the amount of cash deposit is not out of the gift amount. In other words, the revenue has not brought anything on record in support of its contention that amount deposited by the assessee is not out of the cash gift. To our understanding, merely the difference in time between the cash deposited in the bank viz a viz cash received as gift cannot authorize the revenue authorities to draw inferences against the assessee until and unless some documentary evidence are brought on record contrary to the arguments of the learned AR for the assessee. Admittedly, it is very unusual that a wealthy NRI is accepting the gift from his father and the brother. Generally, the practice is different in the society. As such the NRI make gift to the relatives. But we find that there is no prohibition for the NRI for accepting the gifts from the relatives. In the absence of any prohibition, no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee based on the prevailing system in the society.
It is also interesting to note that the assessee has furnished sufficient documentary evidence of his father and the brother to justify the income in their hands from the activity of agricultural. But none of the authority below has made any cross verification from the concern parties in order to bring out the truth on the surface. To our understanding, the AO before drawing any adverse inference against the assessee, should have cross verified from the donors by issuing notice under section 133(6)/131 of the Act. Accordingly, we hold that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee by holding that the amount of cash deposited by the assessee in his bank represents the unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Accordingly we set aside the finding of the learner CIT-A and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Vadodara, dated 15/06/2017 arising in the matter of penalty order passed under s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year 2012-2013.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
