2015 (1) TMI 472 - HC - Income Tax

Genuity of gifts - Held that - The order passed by the Tribunal having been implemented by the Assessing Officer and having once again been set-aside, the controversy involved in the present petition has been rendered infructuous/academic, particularly in the light of the fact that we have affirmed the order of remand dated 04.12.2000 passed in appeals filed by the assessee. There is no error of law in the exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal in holding the gifts made by Sh. Surinder Kumar Maheshwari to the Assessee and his two brothers almost in equivalent amounts to each to be genuine without adjudicating upon the capacity of the donor and in directing the A.O. to reconsider the genuineness of the gifts when the addition made by treating the gift as not genuine is justified. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in directing that if any addition is sustained in the hands of the Assessee, the same should be off-set with the surrender in the firm in which the Assessee is a partner to the extent of his share is open to be answered.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of gifts made by the donor to the assessee and his brothers.
2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal in directing the Assessing Officer to reconsider the genuineness of the gifts.
3. Treatment of any sustained addition in the hands of the assessee in relation to the surrender in the firm.

Issue 1:
The first issue in this case pertains to the validity of gifts made by the donor to the assessee and his brothers. The Tribunal was tasked with determining the genuineness of the gifts without adjudicating upon the capacity of the donor. The revenue contended that the Tribunal overstepped its jurisdiction by remitting the matter and suggesting set-off against the income surrendered by the firm. However, the assessee argued that since their appeals were dismissed, the Tribunal's directions should be upheld. The High Court found that the controversy had become academic as subsequent assessments had been made. Consequently, the first and second questions were answered against the revenue, affirming the Tribunal's jurisdiction in the matter.

Issue 2:
The second issue revolves around the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in directing the Assessing Officer to reconsider the genuineness of the gifts. The revenue argued that the Tribunal should not have preemptively decided on set-off issues, leaving it for the Assessing Officer to determine. However, the assessee maintained that the Tribunal's directions should stand. The High Court noted that subsequent assessments had been made, rendering the controversy moot. The first and second questions were answered against the revenue, upholding the Tribunal's jurisdiction in the matter.

Issue 3:
The final issue concerns the treatment of any sustained addition in the hands of the assessee in relation to the surrender in the firm. The High Court held that since subsequent assessments had been made, the controversy had become academic. The first and second questions were answered against the revenue, affirming the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The third question was left open to be answered in the pending appeals related to the matter. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of accordingly, with the third question to be addressed in the pending appeals.