9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (1) TMI 616 - AT - Income TaxAssessment - Additions to income - genuineness of foreign gifts - whether the statement of the assessee can be relied upon or not - HELD THAT - In the instant case admittedly there was no occasion for the donor for giving the gift to the assessee out of love and affection. Admittedly, the same donor, who is working as watchman in the foreign country, has gifted a sum of Rs. 1 lakh each to the assessee, his two sons and two other family members. It appears to be most improbable that a person serving as watchman in foreign country would gift a total amount of Rs. 5 lakhs to the assessee and his family members merely because he happens to be alleged friend of the assessee and more go because it does not conform with the human probabilities. On analysing the statement of the assessee recorded by the Assessing Officer as well as discrepancies noticed by the Assessing Officer in the statement of the assessee and in other documents the hollowness of the claim of the assessee regarding his closeness with the donor stands exposed and the same is discussed as under. From the discussed aspects of the case the assessee neither the statement of the assessee can be believed nor the gift of Rs. 1,00,000 given by the donor to the assessee can be treated as genuine. The arguments of learned AR for the assessee that since the other two gifts of Rs. 1 lakh given by the same donor to the two sons of the assessee has been accepted by the department as genuine, so in the case of the assessee, the genuineness of the gift from the same donor cannot be doubted also has no force because the CIT(A) deleted the addition in the case of two sons of the assessee on the reasoning that as they were majors so the gifts received by them cannot be added in the hands of the assessee but the deletion was not made treating the gifts in the hands of two sons of the assessee being genuine. Hence, this arguments of the learned AR of the assessee having no force, is rejected. Thus, the impugned gift of Rs. 1 lakh received by the assessee cannot be treated as genuine. The order of CIT(A) in this regard is set aside and that of Assessing Officer, in making the impugned addition of Rs. 1 lakh, is upheld. Ground of appeal taken by the revenue is allowed. In the result of appeal filed by the revenue is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 1 lakh on account of bogus foreign gifts. 2. Relationship and occasion for the gift between the donor and the assessee. 3. Discrepancies in the statements and documents provided by the assessee. 4. Application of judicial precedents related to the genuineness of gifts. Summary: 1. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 1 Lakh on Account of Bogus Foreign Gifts: The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order, which deleted the addition of Rs. 1 lakh made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of a bogus foreign gift. The AO had made the addition based on the lack of relationship and occasion for the gift between the donor and the assessee, and discrepancies in the statements and documents provided by the assessee. 2. Relationship and Occasion for the Gift Between the Donor and the Assessee: The assessee claimed the amount as a gift from a friend, supported by an affidavit from the donor, Shri Darshan Singh. However, the AO found discrepancies in the assessee's statements, such as not knowing the donor's full name and business details, which indicated a lack of genuine relationship. The AO concluded that the gift was not genuine, citing the Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in Lal Chand Kalra v. CIT, which held that gifts to strangers cannot be genuine. 3. Discrepancies in the Statements and Documents Provided by the Assessee: The AO noted several discrepancies in the assessee's statements and documents, such as the assessee's inability to provide details about the donor and contradictory statements about the receipt of gifts by other family members. The AO also pointed out that the donor, a watchman in a foreign country, had gifted Rs. 1 lakh each to the assessee and his family members, which was improbable. 4. Application of Judicial Precedents Related to the Genuineness of Gifts: The CIT(A) had relied on judicial precedents, such as Jawahar Lal Oswal Ludhiana v. Asstt. CIT and CIT v. Mrs. Sunita Vachani, to delete the addition, stating that the gift was received through normal banking channels and confirmed by an affidavit. However, the Tribunal found these precedents distinguishable, as the AO had recorded discrepancies and concluded that the gift was not genuine based on the test of human probabilities. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the AO's addition of Rs. 1 lakh, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal emphasized that the gift could not be accepted as genuine merely because it was received through banking channels and supported by an affidavit. The assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the gift, considering the discrepancies and lack of credible relationship with the donor. The appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed.
|
