9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Deletion of addition of Rs. 6,00,000 being amount received as gift. Analysis: The sole issue in this appeal pertains to the deletion of the addition of Rs. 6,00,000 received as a gift from a specific individual. The donor, Mr. Raman Kumar, stated that the recipient, Mr. Sunil Mittal, had helped him significantly in various circumstances, including saving his life. The Assessing Officer contended that since the gift was received during the course of business and not on a special occasion, it should be treated as income under section 28(iv) of the Act. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) disagreed, emphasizing that the appellant had established the identity of the donor, the creditworthiness for making the gift, and the justification for the gift being on the occasion of a marriage. It was noted that there was no evidence of any consideration passed by the appellant to the donor in return for the gift, indicating the absence of 'quid pro quo' and the non-recurrence of the gift. The gift was deemed genuine as the donor voluntarily made it without any consideration, leading to the deletion of the addition. The Departmental Representative argued that the amount should be taxable under section 28(iv) of the Act as it was received in the course of carrying on business, citing relevant case law. Conversely, the appellant's counsel maintained that the gift was not related to business activities and was given as a gesture of gratitude due to the recipient's assistance to the donor. The Tribunal analyzed the situation, emphasizing that the gift was not received as a benefit or perquisite arising from business activities and was not in the course of carrying on the appellant's business. The Tribunal distinguished the cited case law and concluded that the addition could not be made under section 28(iv) of the Act. In summary, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling that the amount received as a gift was not income within the meaning of section 28(iv) of the Act. The decision was based on the fact that the gift was not related to business activities and did not constitute a benefit or perquisite arising from such activities. The genuineness of the gift was acknowledged, and the addition was deemed unjustified under the specified section of the Act.
|
