Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Vijay Ramji Prasad Sharma, Mumbai vs Ito 8(3)(4), Mumbai on 11 July, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH "F", MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.5712/MUM/2014 (A.Y: 2010-11) Vijay Ramji Prasad Sharma v. ITO-8(3)(4) 701, Shreeji Darshan, Mumbai Dixit Cross Road No.1 Vile parle (West) Mumbai - 400 057 PAN : AAGPS 8600 Q (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent by : Shri B.S.Bist सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 20.04.2017 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 11.07.2017 आदे श / O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM)
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai dated 12.06.2014 for the Assessment Year 2010-11.
2. The only issue in the appeal of the assessee is that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act in respect of the unexplained cash deposits.
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that, assessee has filed his return of income for AY 2010-11 declaring total income at Rs.2,18,600/-. Subsequently, return was selected for scrutiny, and during scrutiny assessment, it was noticed 2 ITA No.5712/Mum/2014 (A.Y. 2010-11) Vijay Ramji Prasad Sharma by the AO that there was unexplained cash credit in the bank accounts maintained by the assessee for which AO gave adequate opportunities to the assessee. Although, the assessee submitted some details and tried to support the entries contained in the bank account, but after due enquiry, the Ld. Assessing Officer found that despite specific opportunity being given to the assessee the cash-book i.e. Annexure-I prepared and produced by the assessee was held to be unreliable and, therefore, same was rejected. In addition, the assessee had furnished confirmation of 17 persons out of 33 persons from whom assessee has stated to have received 'gifts'. Out of 17 confirmations, in 8 cases PAN was not given and further in 9 cases containing PAN, out of which in 3 cases PAN AKIPS 4839 B was repeated, which was later on found to be related to one Shri Ramji Prasad Sharma, i.e., father of the assessee and in another case, i.e. Smt. Savtri Devi Sharma, i.e., the mother of the assessee, and her PAN was found to be invalid, therefore, out of 17 confirmations, the assessee could provide PAN of only 6 persons, which are correct and out of the 6 confirmations, 2 confirmations related to spouse of the relatives. Apart from the above, several other observations were made by the A.O. Moreover, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee has not been able to discharge the onus of proving beyond doubt the source of cash deposits in his various bank accounts and, therefore, cash deposits in different bank accounts of the assessee was added as unexplained cash deposits income under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to ₹.28,35,400/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) after considering the arguments of both the parties had dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 12.04.2014. Against this order the assessee is in appeal before us.
4. The Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that assessee is a Director in Vedika Impex Private Limited and deriving income from salary. The Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that assessee has received gifts from the various parties and these gifts were deposited in the bank accounts 3 ITA No.5712/Mum/2014 (A.Y. 2010-11) Vijay Ramji Prasad Sharma and cash was withdrawn from bank accounts and redeposited in the bank accounts. Therefore, he submits that the source for depositing the cash into bank is the gifts received by the assessee on his 25th wedding anniversary and also the cash withdrawal from the bank account. The Learned Counsel vehemently argued that source for the deposits were explained and therefore there is no justification in treating the cash deposits as unexplained income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. He reiterated submissions made before the lower Authorities.
5. The Ld.DR vehemently supported the orders of the Ld.CIT(A). He further submitted that the assessee claims to have received gifts from 33 parties out of which only 17 parties confirmed. The Ld.DR submits that there is no necessity for withdrawal by the assessee from his account since sufficient cash balances is already available with him. Further assessee's wife is earning income from tuitions ₹ 10,000/- per month to supplement the house hold expenses. Ld.DR further submits that the claim of the assessee that the gifts were received on his 25th wedding anniversary is also not correct for the reason that it is the finding of the Assessing Officer that it is neither 20th nor 25th wedding anniversary of the assessee. At the same time the Ld.CIT(A) gives a finding that it is 23rd wedding anniversary of the assessee. Therefore, he submits that the assessee could not explain the sources for the deposits made. Therefore, the lower authorities have perfectly justified in sustaining the addition.
6. We have heard the rival submissions perused the orders of the authorities below. The Ld.CIT(A) sustained the addition u/s 68 observing as under: -
"2.1 During the assessment proceedings the AO has called for details of bank account maintained by the assessee in individual capacity or jointly with others or operated by him in any capacity. In response to the show cause notice the AR of the appellant has submitted copy of bank accounts of the appellant with Canara Bank, Vile Parle East Branch and State Bank of Saurashtra, Vile Pane East Branch. The AR of the appellant was asked to submit copies of these bank accounts and also to explain the credit entries in these accounts. The Department had 4 ITA No.5712/Mum/2014 (A.Y. 2010-11) Vijay Ramji Prasad Sharma received information that the assessee has also maintained bank accounts with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Vile Pane Branch in which the cash deposit of Rs14,37,000/- was made. Again a show cause notice was issued to the assessee to explain the same. In response to this the AR of the appellant has submitted certificate of cash deposits and withdrawals of Canara Bank and statement of account of the assessee with Oriental Bank of Commerce. The AO also asked the assessee to produce the cash book prepared by the assessee as Annexure I forming part of the assessment order. From the perusal of the cash book the AO has noticed that every month the assessee has shown drawings of Rs.10,000/- and in February the assessee had shown receipt of Rs.9,00,000/- as gifts received from relatives. Again the AO issued show cause notice to the assessee to explain and submit complete details of gift received with the occasion of gift and confirmation from the parties. The AR of the appellant has submitted its reply. The AO has also asked the AR to produce the assessee to explain the cash transaction and also details of domestic/personal expenses. Since Shri Vijay R. Sharma was produced before the AO he was drawn attention to the Cash Book Annexure I. The AO has given opportunity to the assessee to explain the huge withdrawal of cash and huge cash deposits in these bank accounts. With regard to drawings of Rs.10.000/-, the assessee was requested to produce details of domestic/personal expenses and also asked to explain the low withdrawals for personal use Regarding gift received the assessee was asked to submit complete names, addresses, PAN and other details with confirmation of donors. As per the AIR information received by the AO the assessee has made total cash deposit in this bank account amounting to Rs.28,35,400/-. In reply to this show cause notice the AR of the appellant has submitted which was not satisfactory to prove the source of cash deposit in these bank accounts and so documentary evidence was submitted to substantiate the claim. Finally the AO has given show cause notice to the assessee as to why the cash deposit and bank account may not be treated as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the I.T Act. In response to this show cause notice the AR of the appellant has submitted its reply which is reproduced at page 4 to 7 of the assessment order Then the AO has discussed contents of the cash book. The opening balance Was shown at Rs.31,073/- and closing balance as on 31.3.2010 was shown at Rs.12,673/-. In the month of April, 2009 the assessee has shown withdrawals of Rs.3,15,000/-, Rs.35,000/- on 6.4.2009 and Rs.5,000/- on 13.4.2009. The argument of the appellant was not accepted by the AO. Then the drawings made from the bank account for the month of April, 2009 was continued to remain in hand till June, 2009. Then the withdrawals was increase as discussed by the AO at pages 7 and 8 of the assessment order. Further the AO has given a chart of 35 names showing the relationship of the donor with the assessee, amount of gift, PAN of the donor and PAN validity. Out of 5 ITA No.5712/Mum/2014 (A.Y. 2010-11) Vijay Ramji Prasad Sharma these 35 names only persons at S.No.1 to 14 has submitted confirmations and PAN. But only the PAN in 5 cases was found correct. In other cases PAN mentioned was wrong and at S. Nos. 15 to 35 no confirmation was filed. In absence of any documentary evidence, occasion of gift the AO has held that there was no occasion of gift and the assessee has failed to submit the confirmation from the donors. Therefore, the gift amount of Rs.9,00,000/- claimed by the assessee was treated as unexplained cash credit u/s68. In view of these facts and circumstances, the total cash deposits amounting to Rs,28,35.400/- in three bank accounts maintained by the assessee were treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act and added back to the taxable income.
2.2 Before me the appellant submitted as under:
Whatever cash was deposited in the bank accounts was out of cash withdrawal from the other bank accounts of the assessee. it is only a circulation of the money from one bank to the other. The assessing officer rejected the claim of the assessee stating that it is not possible for a person to keep cash in his hand and withdraw money from the bank account without showing any further need of the cash amount, in this regard, it is submitted that there is no provision in law which states that particular cash has to be kept by a person and the amount cannot be withdrawn from the bank account when the assessee is having cash with it. It is purely the decision of the assessee as to when to withdraw the amount from the bank and in which quantity. No person can decide the same in the whole assessment order, the thrust of the assessing officer was that no person can withdraw the amount when he was having cash in hand and therefore, whatever cash was deposited in the bank account was considered as unexplained cash credit.
The assessee arranged loans through cheques from various persons to start new business but which could not be commenced. The amounts were withdrawn for the purpose to acquire a small outlet on rent, stocks and other infrastructural utilities. Since the same could not materialize these amounts were deposited in the bank accounts, Later on the amount was returned to the persons from whom the loans were taken The details of the amounts taken as loan and partly returned back to various persons are enclosed as Annexure-2. All such loans were taken and returned through bank. The assessing officer accepted the said fact as the addition has been made in respect of cash deposits only. There is no dispute regarding the other deposits through cheque, There is no proof that the cash withdrawal from the bank accounts was utilized by the assessee for any other purpose and there was no. cash available with the assessee for depositing the same on the date of 6 ITA No.5712/Mum/2014 (A.Y. 2010-11) Vijay Ramji Prasad Sharma deposit. There was no negative cash. The cash was withdrawn from one bank account and deposited in other bank account A copy of the cash book is enclosed as Annexure-3. The photocopies of the other bank statements are also enclosed as Annexure-4.
In addition to the cash deposits in the bank accounts out earlier cash withdrawals from the bank accounts and PPF withdrawal besides loans taken from various persons, the assessee also received a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- from various relatives on the occasion of his marriage anniversary. In the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer raised the questions, as to why gifts of Rs. 9,00,000/- were received from various relatives by the appellant and his wife when there was neither 20th anniversary nor 25th anniversary of marriage, why the assessee's spouse used to give tuition when she belonged to a known family and whose father was the President of J C Mills and various prominent industrialists, businessmen, journalists, politicians and eminent citizen attended the marriage. in reply to the same, it was explained to the assessing officer that the assessee's marriage took place in 1987 and due to financial problem in the family and unfortunately due to no business of the assessee, there were disputes in both the spouses and the marriage of more than 23 years was on the verge of divorce. There was a marriage function in the family of a relative of the assessee and all the relatives attended the said marriage and since the marriage anniversary of the assessee was also at that time on February 7, the relatives of the assessee tried to solve the issue and to avoid divorce, anniversary function was arranged during the said marriage function and gifts were given to the assessee and his wife to give some financial support to them. The account confirmations from some of the relatives in this regard were submitted before the assessing officer. The assessing officer did not consider the said amount received in cash and deposited in bank account as explained stating that it is likely to happen anywhere and not at all possible in Indian Society. On any family occasion, where all the relatives are present and gifts were given/exchanged, it is more likely that only the head of each family or only one member of such family would give away gift and not both the husband and wife in the family. The theory of marriage anniversary itself appears to be cooked up in view of the fact that the assessee did not show any expenditure -- either in cash or by cheque -- whatsoever incurred on hosting of the event in February 2010. Thus, the list of relatives provided by the assessee to substantiate the receipt of gift is unreliable and hence rejected."
In reply to the same, it is submitted that the assessing officer did not consider the correct facts. He ignored a very vital point that the financial condition of the assessee family was very bad and the marriage of the assessee was on the verge of divorce. It was submitted before the 7 ITA No.5712/Mum/2014 (A.Y. 2010-11) Vijay Ramji Prasad Sharma assessing officer that due to this reason only the gifts were given by the relatives and the marriage anniversary was arranged by the relatives in the marriage function of their relative and no separate function was arranged. It should be appreciated that when the financial condition of the assessee family was bad, how could they arrange a function for their relatives. It was never stated by the assessee that the function was arranged by the assessee or his family. Therefore, the view taken by the assessing officer ignoring the contention of the assessee is incorrect. It was a special case when the large amount of gifts was given by the relatives in the form of cash to support the assessee family financially. It is further stated that in assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted confirmation letters from some of the relatives and also provided addresses and PAN of some of them. The assessing officer has merely on his assumption that no such gift could be given by the relatives denied the claim of the assessee. No effort was made to confirm the facts from the relatives of the assessee in any manner. In the assessment order, the assessing officer has mentioned that the Submission of the assessee that his spouse supplements his monthly withdrawal's of Rs.10, 000/ with the receipt of her tuition fees to meet her domestic and personal expenses is held as untrue and unsubstantiated and a story cooked up subsequently to cover up low withdrawals of Rs.10,000/- pm. shown by the assessee. Further, the amounts withdrawn by the assessee from his bank accounts from time to time were utilized/incurred for meeting unrecorded out-of-book various expenditures towards domestic / personal and social obligations. In response to the same, as already submitted in preceding pares it is repeated that the financial position of the assessee was not good the marriage of the assessee was on the verge of end. Due to the financial reasons only there were disputes in the family and the assessee was not doing anything during the period. Under these circumstances, the wife of the assessee was also giving tuitions and was earning for the livelihood. The assessing officer has merely on assumptions and presumptions taken a stand that the story is cooked up without appreciating the facts and if he was having any doubt regarding the same, he could have issued summons to the relatives of the assessee from whom the assessee had received gifts on marriage anniversary which was not done. Merely on his assumptions, he made additions in the hand of assessee. The assessing officer has mentioned that the amount withdrawn from bank were utilized/incurred for meeting unrecorded out of book various expenditure towards domestic/personal and social obligations, which is totally vague finding. There is no support to the said averment. The assessing officer could not point out anything which could prove that the amount withdrawn was utilized for any other purpose. While considering the addition, the telescoping is necessary. in the case of the assessee, the cash withdrawn is deposited in the other bank account Nothing has been brought on record what expenditure the 8 ITA No.5712/Mum/2014 (A.Y. 2010-11) Vijay Ramji Prasad Sharma assessee made out of books, what social obligations he had fulfilled from the cash withdrawn from the bank. Under these circumstances, when the financial position of the assessee was bad and the marriage was not going well, what social obligations would a person fulfill. Without appreciating all the circumstances, the assessing officer merely on assumption has stated that the assessee had utilized the cash withdrawals from bank without bringing anything on record. The assessing officer has prepared an analysis of the cash available with the assessee on various dates and stated that since the assessee was having substantial cash in hand, why the additional cash was withdrawn. In this regard, it is stated that there is no bar under the law to withdraw more cash despite earlier having cash in hand. Merely on the basis of such analysis it could not be stated that since there was cash withdrawals again from the hank, the earlier cash in hand must be utilized out of books without pointing out anything concrete that for what purpose the amount was utilized.
Thus there was sufficient cash in hand of the assessee which was out of the withdrawals from the bank accounts of the assessee for which the source was withdrawal from PPF account, salary income to assessee, loans from various parties (not ever disputed by the assessing officer in the assessment order) and gifts received from various relatives of the assessee as explained earlier. There was no negative cash. Under these circumstances, no addition can be made u/s. 68 of the Act." 2.3 I have considered the submissions of the appellant, order of the AO and facts of the case carefully. It is noticed that the AO has called for details of bank accounts maintained by the assessee. In response to this show cause notice the AR of the appellant has submitted that the assessee has maintained bank account with Canara Bank and State Bank of Saurashtra. But the AO has received information from the AIR that assessee has also maintained bank account with Oriental Bank of Commerce in which the cash deposit of Rs.14,37,000/- has been made The AO has confronted this with the assessee and the assessee has submitted a copy of the cash book for the period 14.2009 to 31.3.2010 and copy of bank accounts maintained with Canara Bank, State Bank of Saurashtra and Oriental Bank of Commerce. The AO has discussed the entries of the cash book at pages 7 and 8 of the assessment order and also discussed the gift received at Rs.9 lakhs from relatives at page 9 and 10 of the assessment order. The assessee was asked to explain the source of these cash deposit in this bank account and also asked to submit complete names and addresses with PAN numbers and confirmation of the donors of gifts. In response to the show cause notice the AR of the appellant has failed to submit complete explanation regarding the cash deposits in bank account and also failed to submit complete confirmations regarding the gift received from relatives. The AO 9 ITA No.5712/Mum/2014 (A.Y. 2010-11) Vijay Ramji Prasad Sharma has mentioned that the assessee has submitted confirmation in respect of 7 parties in which PAN was mentioned in 9 cases out of which 6 PAN were valid and others were invalid PAN numbers. No confirmation was submitted for the other parties. No evidence were submitted. Therefore, the AO has treated the entire cash of Rs.28,35,400/- deposited in these bank accounts as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 and added back to the taxable income of the assessee. On the other hand the AR of the appellant has submitted that whatever cash deposit was made in the bank account was out of cash withdrawals from other bank accounts of the assessee. It was only circulation of money from one bank to other. The AO has rejected the claim of the assessee that it was not possible for a person to keep cash in hand and withdraw amount from the bank account without showing any further use of the cash amount. The AR of the appellant has argued that there is no provision in law which states that particular cash has to be kept by a person and the amount cannot be drawn from the bank account when the assessee is having cash deposits. The assessee has raised loan through cheques to various ions to start new business but it could not be commenced. The amounts were returned for the purpose to acquire a small outlet on rent, stocks and other, infrastructure utilities. Since same could not be materialized those amounts were deposited in the bank accounts. Later on the amount was returned to the person from whom the loans were taken. The details of the amounts taken as loan and partly returned back to various persons was submitted. The AO has made addition relating to cash deposits only and there was no dispute regarding the other deposits through cheques. In addition to the cash deposits in bank account out of cash withdrawals the assessee has also received a sum of Rs.9.00,000/- from various relatives as gift on the marriage anniversary of the assessee. It was also argued that the AO has not considered the correct facts of the case and treated all cash deposits in bank accounts as cash credits u/s.68 of the I.T. Act.
From the perusal of the submissions and facts of the case it is an undisputed issue that that assessee has maintained three bank accounts with Genera Bank, State Bank of Saurashtra and Oriental Bank of Commerce. In these bank accounts the assessee has made cash deposits of Rs.28,35,400/- during the year under consideration. When the AO has asked the assessee to submit complete details and documentary evidences for source of these deposits. The AR of the appellant could not submit any satisfactory reply and evidence except by telling that the cash deposit was made out of cash withdrawals from the other bank accounts. No reconciliation as nexus was provided against the withdrawal and cash deposit in the other bank accounts. The assessee has also received a gift of Rs.9,00,000/- from relatives on the marriage anniversary of the assessee. When asked by the AO to prove the Oneness of gift by giving the name, address, PAN of the donors the assessee has failed to submit 10 ITA No.5712/Mum/2014 (A.Y. 2010-11) Vijay Ramji Prasad Sharma the complete names and confirmations with J except in 6 cases Where the PAN were found correct and in others the PAN were wrongly mentioned and in 16 cases no confirmation filed. The AO has also observed that there was no function for marriage anniversary of the assessee but was claimed that during the marriage function of relatives when there was no receipt was celebrated the amount of Rs.9 lakhs was collected. However, no documentary evidence was submitted to prove the occasion of gift and source of donors with any confirmation. As per the provisions of section 68 of the I.T. Act the onus is always on the assessee to proved the source of cash deposit in its bank account/books of accounts. However, in the present case the AR of the appellant has failed to submit cogent explanation and documentary evidence to prove the source of cash deposits in these 3 bank accounts. To strengthen the view of the AO reliance is placed on the following decisions:
(1) Roshan D. Hatti. v C(T 107 ITR 938 (SC)...
(2) CIT v, Biju Patnaik 160 ITR 674 (SC).
(3) C. Kant & Co. v. CIT 126 ITR 63 (Cal.) (4) Malabar Agricultural Co. Ltd vs. CIT 229 ITR 548 (Ker) (5) Hahchand Virender Paul v. CIT 140 ITR 148(P&H).
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the judicial pronouncements of Honorable Courts, it is held that the assessee has failed to submit any documentary evidence to prove the source of cash deposit in bank accounts. The argument of the appellant that cash withdrawals were utilized for cash deposits in other bank accounts is also self contradictory. The assessee itself has submitted that the withdrawals were made for starting a business to acquire a small outlet on rent, stocks and other infrastructure utilized which were not materialized and the amount was deposited in the bank accounts. Since the business of assessee has failed therefore, there was a bleak chance of getting back any money after investing in the starting of the business. Moreover, no documentary evidence was submitted to substantiate its claim. Regarding the gifts the assessee has failed to submit complete names, addresses, PAN and confirmations of the donors and also the occasion of gifts. Therefore, it was only a story formulated by the assessee to explain the cash deposits in the bank which cannot be accepted. During the appellate proceedings the AR of the appellant has also submitted the peak amount to be adopted as unexplained cash deposits. But it was only possible if the assessee has submitted nexus that the cash was withdrawn and was again deposited in the bank accounts. But the assessee has failed to submit reconciliation statement and nexus between the cash withdrawals and cash deposits. Therefore, this story is also not acceptable. In totality of facts and circumstances, it is held that the assessee has failed to submit any documentary evidence to prove 11 ITA No.5712/Mum/2014 (A.Y. 2010-11) Vijay Ramji Prasad Sharma the source of cash deposits in the bank accounts amounting to Rs.28,35,400/-. Therefore, the addition made by the AO as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the I.T. Act is upheld and ground of appeal is dismissed."
7. We have also gone through the material available on record and case laws cited as well as orders of the lower authorities, after perusal of the order of the CIT(A) we are of the considered view that the CIT(A) has considered the case of the assessee from all angles and have also considered all the submissions of the assessee put forth before the Ld. CIT(A) and the first appellate authority has rightly held that assessee has three bank accounts which were maintained at Canara Bank; State Bank of Saurashtra; and Oriental Bank of Commerce. During the year under consideration, assessee had made cash deposit of Rs.28,35,400/- in all these three bank accounts combined together. The Ld. CIT(A) has also correctly appreciated that the Ld. AR of the assessee could not submit any satisfactory reply and evidence except by telling that the cash deposit was made out of cash withdrawals from the other bank accounts, however, no reconciliation as nexus was provided against the withdrawal and cash deposited in the other bank accounts. The Ld. CIT(A) has correctly taken into consideration that the assessee has also said to have received as a 'gift' a sum of Rs. 9 lakhs from various relatives on his marriage anniversary. It was noticed by CIT(A) that the AO has asked the assessee to prove the genuineness of the 'gift' vis-à-vis credit worthiness of the donors by giving their PAN as well as bank statements and source of their income, which assessee has failed to produce and could not submit any satisfactory reply and evidence except by telling that cash deposits was made out of cash withdrawals from the other bank accounts, which was found to be self-contradictory and, therefore, unsustainable.
8. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts of the case has rightly held that the assessee has only formulated a story to explain the cash deposits in the bank account, which was rightly rejected by the first appellate 12 ITA No.5712/Mum/2014 (A.Y. 2010-11) Vijay Ramji Prasad Sharma authority. The Ld. CIT(A) has also rejected the plea of the assessee with regard to peak amount to be adopted as 'unexplained cash deposits' on the ground that the said plea is only possible if the assessee would have proved it by any evidence regarding the nexus of cash deposits with that of withdrawals and was again deposited in the bank account but since assessee has failed to submit reconciliation statement and nexus between cash withdrawal and cash deposits, therefore, the entire plea raised by the assessee was rightly found to be unsustainable and unreliable.
9. Apart from that, no new evidence or material have been brought before us to prove and support their plea put forth before us and, therefore, we do not see any reason to deviate from the finding given by the CIT(A) while dealing with the said issue. In our considered view, the first appellate authority has passed a well-reasoned order and we do not find any reason to take a different view. However, since it is not in dispute that the out of 33 Parties 17 Parties have confirmed the gifts having been given to the assessee, we are of the view that these gifts should be treated as genuine and they should not be treated as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. Accordingly, we partly uphold the impugned order of the first appellate authority and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition to the extent of the gifts received from these 17 parties as listed out in the assessment order and pass orders accordingly.
10. In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on the 11th July, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/- (B.R.BASKARAN) (C.N.PRASAD) ले खा सदस्य / न्यायिक सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER मुुंबई / Mumbai; दिनाुं क / Dated 11/07/2017 VSSGB, SPS 13 ITA No.5712/Mum/2014 (A.Y. 2010-11) Vijay Ramji Prasad Sharma
आदे श की प्रयियलयि अग्रे यिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant
2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), Mumbai.
4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT
5. दवभागीय प्रदतदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, मुुं बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.
सत्यादपत प्रदत //True Copy// आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER, सहािक िं जीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आिकर अिीलीि अयिकरण,मुुं बई / ITAT, Mum