9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m were having no blood relations between them. It is a NRI gift from a stranger and it cannot be said to be genuine or valid nor out of love and affection. - here a person residing abroad had sent a gift to a stranger. It has come on record that the donor made contradictory versions about his relationship with the donee. But the sum and substance of his version leads to the fact that there existed no blood relationship between them. It has also been admitted by the donor that he had not gifted any amount to any other person. In this scenario, there was no occasion for him to make the gift and this amount could not have been deleted. - Following decision of Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s Udham Singh & Sons, Goraya [2014 (3) TMI 467 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urse of assessment proceedings, the assessee replied to the questionnaire and furnished explanation that he had received the said amount equivalent to ₹ 3,16,570/- from Y.P. Wadhera who is residing in U.K.. The Assessing Officer doubted the explanation put forth by the assessee. The Assessing Officer took notice of the fact that the donor and donee had no relationship with each other. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 7.11.1990 directed that the said amount be added to be income of the assessee on account of his income from undisclosed sources, as it was bogus gift re-routed as a foreign remittance. The Assessing Officer also gave directions for initiating penalty proceedings as prescribed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with regard to gift of 12,000 pounds equivalent to ₹ 3,16,570/- received from Y.P. Wadhera, held that it was through proper banking channel and Assessing Officer had made the addition without rebutting the assessee's explanation and evidence produced on record. Hence, it was concluded that the assessee had not only proved the identity of the donor, but also its capacity to make the gift. Consequently, it was held that the gift was genuine. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant- revenue as well as for the respondent and have perused the paper-book carefully. 7. In the instant case, cash entries by way of two different foreign cheques amounting to ₹ 3,16,570/- made by one Y.P. Wadhera in favour of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holding that the gift in question was bogus and the Tribunal committed patent error in accepting the gift as genuine. Admittedly, the donor had no relationship with the assessee. He had no occasion to give the gift. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
