9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ations or strangers. Dr. Jagjit Singh, father of donors Gurpreet Kaur and Manpreet K. Sahdev admitted that he had received cash gift from his daughters. It was found unbelievable that instead of giving any gift or monetary help to some charitable organization, a large number of strangers had chosen the assessee to make alleged cash gift running in lacs of rupees. Though, in the report of Assessing Officer submitted on the basis of additional facts and evidence produced by the assessee, the transactions in dispute were not doubted, but the fact remains that the donee was not having blood relations with the donors. - Alleged foreign gifts in favour of the assessee by persons are not genuine. - Decided in favour of Revenue. - ITA No. 15 of 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. 5. Respondent-assessee, filed a return declaring an income of ₹ 304990/-. The assessee was called upon to explain about the following foreign remittances: Amount Donors ₹ 1,82,835/- Jagdish Vijh, USA ₹ 5,00,000/- Pritam Singh, NRE A/c ₹ 3,93,924/- Parmod Tandon, USA ₹ 1,91,000/- Gurpreet Kaur, Pensylvania ₹ 1,91,000/- Manpreet K. Sehdev, Jew Jersey. ₹ 14,58,759/- Total 6. The stand of the assessee was that al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,91,000/- and ₹ 1,91,000/- received from Gurpreet Kaur and Manpreet K. Sahdev, the Assessing Officer in its report submitted that the factum of gift by both the donors stood proved, but doubted their capacity to gift. However, the CIT(A) taking into account that the amounts were received through proper banking channel coupled with the affidavits of the donors, it relied upon the bank statements and held these gifts as genuine and ordered its deletion from the income of the assessee. 9. Similarly, qua the gift received from Parmod Tandon of ₹ 3,93,924/-, the Assessing Officer in its report found the financial capacity of the donor, but noted that there was no relationship between the donor and the donee. The CIT(A) taking in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n here for adjudication. 13. The only dispute remains is with regard to deletion of ₹ 9,58,759/- (1,91,00/- + ₹ 1,91,000/- + ₹ 3,93,924/- + 1,82,835/-) received by the assessee from Gurpreet Kaur, Manpreet K. Sahdev, Parmod Tandon and Jagdish Vijh respectively. 14. Undisputedly, from the record, it is clearly evident that the assessee was not having blood relations with any of the donors. The plea taken by the assessee was that they were his family friends and had come forward to help him to set up a MRI Scan Centre. It was found that there was no occasion to make the gifts either by close relations or strangers. Dr. Jagjit Singh, father of donors Gurpreet Kaur and Manpreet K. Sahdev admitted that he had received cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dass and Sons Versus CIT (2003) 264 ITR 435 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Recently, this Court in ITA No.498 of 2005 decided on 7.2.2011 titled Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal Versus Puneet Singh had taken the same view holding as under: We are of the view that the Assessing Officer and the CIT (A) were justified in 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he authority cited by the assessee as Commissioner of Income Tax v. R.S. Sibal, (2004) 269 ITR 429 does not support the case of the appellant. Thus, there is no perversity or impropriety in the impugned order and sequelly the same is upheld. 17. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the judgment rendered in the case of Puneet Chugh's case (supra), relying upon which Udham Singh's case (supra), has been decided, has been impugned before the Hon'ble Apex Court by way of SLP and notice of motion has been issued, but that by itself is no ground on the basis of which issue can be decided in his favour. 17. In view of the discussion above, we find that the alleged foreign gifts in favour of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
