9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s - the CIT(Appeals) and the ITAT took note of these facts and further noticed that all the gifts were rooted to normal banking transactions. While Section 68 certainly enables the AO to bring to tax amounts which are suspect, in a transaction of the present kind, where the identity and the relationship of the donor are known, the AO in our opinion ought not to have concluded that the transaction - by which the assessee received the amount of ₹ 1,84,860/- was ingenuine. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITR 17/2002 - - - Dated:- 10-2-2015 - MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND MR. R.K.GAUBA JJ For the Appellant: Mr. Balbir Singh, sr. standing counsel with Ms. Rubal Maini, Adv.. For the Respondent: Mr. Prakash Kumar, Adv.. JUDG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16000 Mrs. Leela Suri 9000 Mr. Roshan Lal Suri 9000 Yourself 18000 $ 300000 Please send me letters of acceptance of the gifts from your above relations and M/s Divya International Pvt. Ltd. so that I may remit the amount to them. As suggested by you, I will be sending one draft US $ 300000 in your name to be distribution on my behalf to the above family member amounts indicated against each. 2. Mr. Ashwani Suri, the original donee complied with the directions of the donor contained in the letter and transmitted the relevant amounts to each of the beneficiari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e amount from abroad stands established without going into the question of the person in who hands the amount should be added there appears to the basis for making the addition in the hands of the because the link between the receipt of the amount by shri Ashwani Suri from abroad and by the assessee has been established. In these circumstances that in treating the amounts as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources is not justified and cannot be upheld. The addition is deleted. 4. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ITAT ) rejected the revenue s appeal. In doing so, it followed its previous ruling in the case of the original donee Mr. Ashwani Suri. This led to a payment by the revenue, for a referen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITR 278 (SC). 6. The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that the question of whether one underlined transaction (which led to the receipt of ₹ 1,54,000/-) was genuine or not, in the circumstances of the case, is a pure finding of fact which has been concurrently upheld by the CIT(Appeals) and the ITAT, and it would be perverse in law, if this Court should analyze the reasons given by either or both of those Tribunals. 7. It was submitted that the modes for gifting amounts of properties cannot be really gone into by the revenue, so long as the identity or relationship is established, which has been done in the present instance. This Court considered the factual matrix. The revenue does not dispute the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
