Ashok Kumar, J. - (1.) The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 12.1.2007 and the impugned order of the ITAT dated 24.4.2009 passed in ITA No. 3391/D/2004 for the assessment year 2001-02. Initially, this appeal has been filed as defective appeal No. 143(D) of 2010. After the removal of the defect the appeal has been numbered as regular appeal No. 20 of 2017. During the aforesaid period the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution, however, the restoration application has been allowed vide order dated 12.2.2016 and it is only on 24.3.2017 the appeal is admitted on question Nos. 3 and 5 as raised in the memo of appeal.
(2.) The coordinate bench has admitted the appeal on question No.3 and 5, which are quoted hereinbelow : "3. Whether the Tribunal could have ignored the findings recorded by the First Appellante Court to come to a different conclusion that the assessee had failed to discharge the burden of explaining the gift, when the identity of the donors was duly proved, more so when the donors are the Income Tax Payee and their return of income was accepted by Assessing Officer in the assessment coupled with the fact that the gift was made through bank account of the donor. 5. Whether when the return of Income of the donors was accepted by department the receipt of gift could be treated as income is hands of assessee HUF, more so when no care of unexplained investment was registered against the donors and when proceedings u/s 143 (I)/148 of E.C. Act were decided in donors favour?."
(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant has filed the return of income showing the total income of Rs.4,89,385/-. The return of the assessee was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). The case of the assessee was selected under scrutiny and accordingly, a notice under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued and served.;