9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 680X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Relying upon CIT v. Udham Singh and Sons, decided on December 20, 2013, [2014 (3) TMI 467 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] – 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 – The order of the Tribunal set aside - Decided in favour of Revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remittance, the Assessing Officer, vide order dated November 16, 1998, directed for addition in the income of the assessee. The view of the Assessing Officer was upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, vide order dated August 30, 2000. However, the Tribunal, vide order dated September 5, 2005, allowed the appeal of the assessee in the light of its earlier order rendered in the case of Narinder Kumar Sekhri and the impugned addition was ordered to be deleted. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue as well as for the respondent and have perused the paper-book carefully. 8. The Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) made some observations while making the impugned additions in I. T. A. No. 158 of 2006 : "4. A perusal of SB A/c No. 46 with UBI, Nurmahal shows a credit of ₹ 2,65,000 on February 9, 1996, and February 16, 1996 (2,60,500 + 4,500) respectively. The assessee was required to explain the source of the same. The assessee, vide letter dated August 20, 1998, filed in the office submitted the same was a gift of 10000 US Dollars from Sh. Mohinder Handa, the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the appellate proceedings, the learned counsel gave similar arguments as in the case of Sh. Narinder Sekhri (supra). It was also stated that in addition to the income of Sh. Mohinder Handa, his wife and son were also earning 40,000 and 45,000 dollars respectively per annum. However, no evidence to this effect was filed before the Assessing Officer. Nor any such arguments were taken before the Assessing Officer. No evidence regarding the earning of wife and son of Sh. Mohinder Handa were produced even during the appellate proceedings. Further, it is difficult to accept that a Hindu person belonging to old generation would accept a genuine gift out of the income of his daughter, son-in-law and his grand-son. In these circumstances and following the order in the case of Sh. Narinder Sekhri (supra), the addition of ₹ 2,65,000 made by the Assessing Officer is upheld." 10. Similar observations were made by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) while ordering additions in respect of amounts involved in I. T. A. Nos. 99 and 202 of 2006. 11. The Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) doubted the frequent trans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal that the distant relatives had come to his aid at the time of need, was not sustainable. Not only this, these are not small gifts, particularly keeping in view the contemporaneous times when these were given in the year 1996. 13. In I. T. A. No. 12 of 2000, titled as the CIT v. Udham Singh and Sons, decided on December 20, 2013, [2014] 365 ITR 137 (P&H) this court, while dealing with a situation where a gift was received by the assessee from a non-resident Indian with whom the assessee had no relationship, while relying upon various decisions rendered on the issue, held as under (page 141) : "9. The matter of receipt of foreign gifts even earlier had engaged attention of the courts. This court in Lall Chand Kalra v. CIT [1981] 22 CTR (P&H) 135 had held that NRI gift from a stranger was neither genuine nor valid. This judgment was followed in Jaspal Singh v. CIT (I. T. A. No. 256 of 2006) decided on September 15, 2006 [2007] 290 ITR 306 (P&H) by this court as also judgment in Sajjan Das and Sons v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 435 (Delhi) by the hon'ble Delhi High Court. Recently, this court in I. T. A. No. 498 of 2005 decided on February 7, 2011 titled CIT v. Puneet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
