9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 84,500 claimed to have been received by the assessee during the financial year 1995-96 and invested in FDRs in Canara Bank as per balance-sheet filed by the assessee. The AO questioned the assessee regarding such gifts and the statement recorded under s. 131 of the Act was found to be very specific and relevant in this regard. The AO has quoted the relevant portion of the said statement in the assessment order and in para 4 of the assessment order he observed as under: "The evidence produced by the assessee has no credence, since the assessee has not produced the original declaration from the donor and also the source thereon. Further, the assessee has not filed the gift deed/confirmation from the donor, along with the return of income fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the fact that he has made gift of Rs. 25,000 US $ by DD No. 66845, dt. 9th Aug., 1995, drawn on Chase Manhattan Bank N.A. to Mr. Devichand Bhabutmal Jain of 1255, New Bhawani Peth, Pune-411042. The learned CIT(A) while considering and rejecting the pleas as taken before him, has concluded in para 3 of his order as under: "I have considered rival submissions. I find that the answers given to certain questions by the appellant in his statement under s. 131 are very important. It is clear that there is no connection whatsoever between the donor and the donee. In fact the appellant clearly does not know the donor at all. Under these circumstances, in the absence of direct evidence of the gift, the doctrine of preponderance of probability h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the decisions ITO vs. Dr. Jagdish J. Kansagara (1998) 60 TTJ (Ahd) 288 : (1998) 66 ITD 381 (Ahd), Atmaram J. Manghir Malani (HUF) vs. CIT (1998) 62 TTJ (Mumbai) 357, CIT vs. G. Sagar Suri Sons Ors. (1999) 154 CTR (Del) 80 : (1998) 234 ITR 58 (Del), CIT vs. Prof. P.G.A. Nath (1999) 154 CTR (Del) 402 : (1998) 234 ITR 859 (Del) and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 125 CTR (SC) 124 : (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) for upholding the order and to substantiate that neither the gift has been proved to be genuine nor the identity of the donor has been proved and also nothing has been placed on record to show that either the so-called remitter is a man of means or from where he has withdrawn such amount. Therefore, the AO has rightly added the amount of g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the business carried on by him? Ans.:Appropriately he has migrated 20/25 years before. He runs a departmental store of cloth. He resides at Sant Martin, U.S.A. Q. 9: When have you met last Shri Kriplani? Ans.:Approximately, 4-5 years back I met him. Q. 10: Can you give details of educational qualification and family members of Shri Kriplani? Ans.: I do not know the details. Q. 12: Please give the exact details of Shri Kriplani s visit to you. Ans.: I cannot give the exact details. Q. 13: In what context Mr. Kriplani visited India? Ans.: I do not know the purpose of his visit. He stayed in my house. Q. 14. Can you give the details of business premises of Shri Kriplani? Ans.: He runs business at Saint Martin. I do no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tantiated. The assessee has also failed to give details of educational qualification, details of family members of Mr. Kriplani and the residential address of the so-called remitter in Bombay in his statement recorded. So it shows the degree of thickness of relationship of so-called remitter with the assessee. It is well settled law that the taxing authority can take note of surrounding circumstances CIT vs. Durga Prasad More 1973 CTR (SC) 500 : (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC). In Sumati Dayal vs. CIT the apex Court has held that considering the surrounding circumstances and applying the test of human probabilities is a must. So if we advert to the facts of the present case and apply the test of human probabilities it cannot be accepted that the gif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nto the quantum of gift which had to be considered while judging the genuineness of the gift. However, rich a person might be and howmuch closely he might have been related (in this case there is no relationship) Rs. 7,84,500 as gift out of the blue definitely casts a shadow on the genuineness of the gift as the circumstances under which the gift was made have to be verified so as to ascertain the genuineness of the gift. Taking into consideration all these surrounding circumstances and applying the test of human probabilities, it is held that it is least likely that the assessee might have received such a gift from an unknown person. Since the assessee has miserably failed to either establish the genuineness of the gift or the identity of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
