9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e questions of law are answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. - ITA No. 498 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 7-2-2011 - MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. The appeal was admitted by this Court on 30.10.2006 for determination of the following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in confirming the order of the CIT(Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- made by the assessing officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of alleged NRI g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sukhchain Ram Sallan. As the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the gifts, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.10,00,000/- treating the same as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources under Section 68 of the Act. Besides that, an addition of Rs.2,00,000/- was also made on account of estimated Hawala premium paid for obtaining the said gift of Rs.10,00,000/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee took the matter in appeal and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A) ] vide order dated 22.10.1998 deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Against the order of the CIT (A), the revenue approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short the Tribunal ) who vide order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ft. He was not produced. His financial capacity was not established. His bank statement was not produced. The Tribunal failed to appreciate these facts. It, thus, committed patent error of law in holding that the assessee discharged onus on him to prove the genuineness of the gift. Its order is, thus, perverse. In identical situation, this Court held that NRI gift could not be accepted as genuine unless the assessee was able to prove natural love and affection and financial capacity of the donor. Observations of this Court in Jaspal Singh are:- It is well settled that mere identification of donor and showing the movement of gift amount through banking channel is not enough to prove genuineness of the gift. The assessee was required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
