Open iDraf
Smt. Pooja Sood, New Delhi v. ACIT, New Delhi

Smt. Pooja Sood, New Delhi
v.
ACIT, New Delhi

(Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi)

Income Tax Appeal No. 1589/Del/2012 | 31-10-2013


PER G. PER G. PER G. PER G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, VP VP VP VP : : : : These appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-I, New Delhi dated 30 th January, 2012 for the AY 2002-03 to 2008-09.

2. Ground No.1 of the assessee’s appeals in all the years under consideration is against 20% disallowance out of professional expenses.

3. The facts of the case are that the assessee derives income from profession as art curator and consultant. The Assessing Officer found that the expenses claimed by the assessee are not fully and properly vouched and verifiable and they may also include some expenses in the nature of personal expenses. He, therefore, disallowed 20% out of such expenses. ITA Nos.1589 to 1595/Del/2012 2

4. After considering the arguments of both the sides and the facts of the case, in our opinion, it would meet the ends of justice if disallowance is restricted to 10% of the expenses claimed. We order accordingly and direct the Assessing Officer to re-work out the disallowance.

5. Ground No.2 is against the addition for unexplained gifts. The amount of addition in respective years is as under:- Assessment Year Amount 2002-03 `32,000/- 2003-04 `33,000/- 2004-05 `33,000/- 2005-06 `42,000/- 2006-07 `52,000/- 2007-08 `2,19,211/- 2008-09 `42,000/- + `2,50,125/- Regarding AY 20 Regarding AY 20 Regarding AY 20 Regarding AY 2002 02 02 02- - - -03 03 03 03 :-

6. In this year, the assessee had received the gift of `32,000/- from parents - `21,000/- on birthday and `11,000/- on marriage anniversary.

7. We have heard both the sides and perused the material placed before us. We find that at page 71 of the assessee’s paper book, there is confirmation from Shri Baldev Raj Malhotra, father of the assessee with regard to gift of `21,000/- on her birthday and `11,000/- on her marriage anniversary. In the confirmation, it is mentioned that Shri Baldev Raj Malhotra as well as his wife both are assessed to income tax as well as wealth tax for the last 45 years. It was stated by the ITA Nos.1589 to 1595/Del/2012 3 assessee’s counsel that the parents of the assessee are owner of a big industrial house viz., Weikfield Group of Companies who are manufacturer of food products in Pune. That the returned income of Shri Baldev Raj Malhotra, father of the assessee for the AY 2008-09 was `57,41,316/-. Considering the above, we are satisfied that the assessee is able to prove the identity of the donor, creditworthiness of the donor as well as genuineness of the gift. In view of the above, we find no justification for sustaining the addition of `32,000/-. The same is deleted. AY 2003 AY 2003 AY 2003 AY 2003- - - -04 to 2006 04 to 2006 04 to 2006 04 to 2006- - - -07 07 07 07 :-

8. The facts in all these years are identical to AY 2002-03. The gifts of small amounts are received by the assessee from her parents on the occasion of her birthday as well as marriage anniversary. For the detailed discussion in AY 2002-03, we do not find any justification for sustaining the addition on account of alleged unexplained gift for AY 2003-04 to 2006-07. The same are deleted. AY 2007 AY 2007 AY 2007 AY 2007- - - -08 08 08 08 :-

9. The details of gift received by the assessee amounting to `2,19,211/- are given at page 3 of the assessment order. The same is reproduced below:- Dated Particulars Amount

30.08.2006 Gift received from parents on birthday 31,000

07.12.2006 Gift received from parents on marriage anniversary 30,000

14.06.2006 Payment by son for jewellery set 51,000

07.03.2007 Gift from brother 30,000

31.12.2006 Foreign currency gift 77,211 Total 2,19,211 ITA Nos.1589 to 1595/Del/2012 4

10. We have heard both the sides and perused the material placed before us. For the detailed discussion in AY 2002-03, we direct the Assessing Officer to accept the gift received by the assessee from her parents on birthday and marriage anniversary.

11. With regard to payment by the son of the jewellery set, we find that at page 83 of the paper book, there is a confirmation from her son Siddhartha Sood reading as under:-
“I Siddhartha Sood, aged 24 years having PAN No. BHQPS7000G has paid Rs.51,000 (Rupees fifty one thousand only) to Shreya Gems and Jewels on 14-06-2006 towards the part cost of Jewellery Set. The said jewellery was purchased as gift on the occasion of my mothers birthday cum 25 th Marriage Anniversary.”


12. From the above, it is evident that Shri Siddhartha Sood made the payment of `51,000/- directly to Shreya Gems and Jewels towards the cost of jewellery set which he purchased as a gift for her mother’s 25 th marriage anniversary. Shri Siddhartha Sood is assessed to income tax. Considering the occasion and the fact that Shri Siddhartha Sood is assessed to income tax, in our opinion, there was no justification for treating the gift of jewellery set worth `51,000/- to be unexplained investment by the assessee. The same is deleted.

13. That another gift of `30,000/- is by Shri Mukesh Satpal Malhotra, another brother of the assessee. He has also given the confirmation which is placed at page 82 of the assessee’s paper book. In the confirmation, he has mentioned his permanent account number and has also mentioned that he is regularly assessed to income tax as well as wealth tax for the last 35 years. In view of the above, we do not find any justification for not accepting the genuineness of the gift from ITA Nos.1589 to 1595/Del/2012 5 assessee’s brother of the small sum of `30,000/-. The addition for the same is directed to be deleted.

14. With regard to foreign currency gift of `77,211/-, the assessee has enclosed the confirmation from page 84 onwards. However, the learned DR has rightly pointed out that the so-called confirmation filed by the assessee from assessee’s paper book page Nos.84 to 88 are nothing but some unsigned document. She has also pointed out that the alleged donors are neither assessed to income tax in India nor any evidence with regard to their creditworthiness is given. Even the so- called confirmations are not signed by the donor. Therefore, no evidentiary value can be placed on the same.

15. After considering the arguments of both the sides and perusing the material placed before us, we entirely agree with the contention of the learned DR and hold that the assessee is not able to discharge the onus of proving the foreign currency gift. Accordingly, out of the total addition of `2,19,211/- on account of gift, the addition is sustained at `77,211/-. AY 2008 AY 2008 AY 2008 AY 2008- - - -09 09 09 09 :-

16. That the total addition for unexplained gift is `42,000/- + `2,50,125/-. The gift of `42,000/- is from the parents - `21,000/- on her birthday and `21,000/- on her marriage anniversary. For the detailed discussion in AY 2002-03, the gift of `42,000/- from the parents is directed to be accepted.

17. With regard to foreign currency gift of `2,50,125/-, the facts are similar to AY 2007-08. The so-called confirmations are neither signed by the donor nor there is any evidence of the source of income or the ITA Nos.1589 to 1595/Del/2012 6 creditworthiness of the donor. We, therefore, sustain the addition for foreign currency gift of `2,50,125/-.

18. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 31 st October, 2013. Sd/- Sd/- ( ( ( (U.B.S. BEDI U.B.S. BEDI U.B.S. BEDI U.B.S. BEDI) ) ) ) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT Dated : 31.10.2013 VK. Copy forwarded to: -

1. Appellant : Smt. Pooja Sood, Smt. Pooja Sood, Smt. Pooja Sood, Smt. Pooja Sood, S S S S- - - -155, 2 155, 2 155, 2 155, 2 nd nd nd nd Floor, Floor, Floor, Floor, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi. Panchsheel Park, New Delhi. Panchsheel Park, New Delhi. Panchsheel Park, New Delhi.

2. Respondent : Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Central Circle Central Circle Central Circle- - - -7, New Delhi. 7, New Delhi. 7, New Delhi. 7, New Delhi.

3. CIT

4. CIT(A)

5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar

Advocates List

For Petitioner
  • Shekhar Naphade
  • Mahesh Agrawal
  • Tarun Dua
For Respondent
  • S. Vani
  • B. Sunita Rao
  • Sushil Kumar Pathak

Bench List

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI

Eq Citation