9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (11) TMI 60 - HC - Income TaxAdditions on account of non-genuine gift having been received from a non-resident Indian; and on account of difference in the value of plot - (a) Whether the amount of gift of Rs. 2, 01, 000 drawn by the nonresident Indian donor from his bank account and deposited in the bank account of the donee could be included in the assessment made under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act 1961 where the bank account of the donee already stands disclosed to the Department? (b) Whether the amount of Rs. 89, 500 being alleged difference in the value of plot could be included in the assessment made under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act disregarding the registration deed and other evidence? - we do not see any ground to disturb the concurrent finding recorded by the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal - In the result we hold that the questions of which determination has been sought by the appellant cannot be treated as substantial questions of law - Consequently the appeal is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of a gift amount of Rs. 2,01,000 in the assessment under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Inclusion of Rs. 89,500 as the alleged difference in the value of a plot in the assessment under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Inclusion of Gift Amount of Rs. 2,01,000 The assessee argued that the amount of Rs. 2,01,000 received as a gift from a non-resident Indian (NRI) donor should not be included in the assessment under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The gift was claimed to be genuine, supported by an affidavit from the donor and evidence of the transaction through the donor's NRE account. However, the court, referencing the Tribunal's findings, noted several inconsistencies and suspicious circumstances surrounding the gift: - The NRE account was opened shortly before the gift was made, with significant transactions occurring within a short period. - The donor, despite being in touch with the assessee, was not produced for examination. - The donor was a person of modest means before going abroad, casting doubt on his ability to make such a gift. - The assessee had never received any gifts from family members or relatives, making the gift from a distant acquaintance unusual. The court emphasized that the Tribunal's decision was based on "the test of human probabilities" and found no patent error in the appreciation of evidence. The court also clarified that it is not within its scope under section 260A of the Act to re-evaluate evidence or disturb the concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse, arbitrary, or based on no material. Therefore, the court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the gift was not genuine and should be treated as undisclosed income. Issue 2: Inclusion of Rs. 89,500 as Difference in Plot Value The assessee contended that the addition of Rs. 89,500, representing the alleged difference in the value of a plot, was unsustainable. The plot was purchased for Rs. 1 lakh as per the registered sale deed, which was produced before the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal, however, upheld the addition based on the following observations: - During the search and seizure operation, the assessee admitted to purchasing the plot for Rs. 1,65,000. - The adjoining plot, purchased by the assessee's brother from the same sellers, was also declared at a higher value, supporting the claim that the actual purchase price was understated in the registered deed. - The Tribunal noted that it is common knowledge that immovable properties are often purchased with part of the payment made outside the books of account. The court found no merit in the assessee's argument and confirmed the Tribunal's finding. The court reiterated that the assessee's statement during the search operation was a crucial piece of evidence, and the addition of Rs. 89,500 was justified. Conclusion The court concluded that the questions raised by the assessee did not constitute substantial questions of law under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the additions made by the Assessing Officer, as upheld by the Tribunal, were confirmed.
|
