2009 (7) TMI 56 - HC - Income Tax

Undisclosed Sources - Genuine Gift - assessee claimed certain gifts but the Assessing Officer made addition to the declared income by treating the alleged gifts to be income from undisclosed sources - appellant submitted that the donors had given affidavits and the gift deeds were also produced. The Assessing Officer obtained report from Mr. R.S. Bura Assessing Officer Rohtak where the donors disowned the making of the gifts Held that The object of cross-examination is to test the veracity of the version given in examination in chief. In the present case even if cross-examination was allowed and the donors who had disowned the making of gifts were confronted and shown to be factually wrong the same would have made no difference as there was no natural love and affection and in its absence the gifts were not genuine. Addition confirmed.

Issues involved:
1. Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Treatment of alleged gifts as income from undisclosed sources.
3. Disallowance of opportunity for cross-examination of donors.
4. Dispute over the genuineness of the gifts based on affidavits and gift deeds.
5. Application of legal principles regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of donors in gift transactions.
6. Interpretation of the judgment in Shri Tirath Ram Gupta Vs. CIT regarding natural love and affection in gift transactions.
7. Reliance on various judgments in support of the appellant's case.
8. Comparison with the judgment in Sanjiv Kumar Jain's case regarding cross-examination of witnesses.

Comprehensive analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the treatment of alleged gifts as income from undisclosed sources for the assessment year 2003-04.
2. The Assessing Officer added the alleged gifts to the declared income, which was upheld by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, leading to the appellant's appeal.
3. The appellant contended that the donors had provided affidavits and gift deeds to support the gifts, but the Assessing Officer obtained contradictory statements from the donors, and the appellant was not allowed to cross-examine them.
4. The Tribunal emphasized the onus on the assessee to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of donors in gift transactions. It noted discrepancies in the gift deeds and the donors' statements disowning the gifts, leading to the conclusion that the gifts were not genuine.
5. The Tribunal applied legal principles from the judgment in Shri Tirath Ram Gupta Vs. CIT, highlighting the importance of natural love and affection in gift transactions. It concluded that without such a relationship, the gifts could not be considered genuine.
6. The absence of a relationship between the donors and the appellant, coupled with the lack of natural love and affection, supported the Tribunal's decision that the gifts were not genuine.
7. The appellant relied on various judgments to support their case, but the Tribunal found them irrelevant based on the specific facts of the case.
8. The comparison with the judgment in Sanjiv Kumar Jain's case regarding cross-examination of witnesses did not alter the outcome, as the lack of natural love and affection remained a crucial factor in determining the genuineness of the gifts.
9. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose based on the facts and legal principles applied in the case.

← Previous Next →