9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come for Asst. Year 2008-09 on 13/07/2009 showing total income at Rs. 13,95,310/- in pursuance to notice u/s 153A dated 3.6.2009. During the course of assessment proceedings ld. Assessing Officer observed that assessee has shown to have accepted gift in kind in the form of equity shares of Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. of 2400 shares and 1650 shares vide declarations of gift deed dated 7.2.2008 and 17.3.2008. On examining the details of gift with the seized paper material (collected in the course of search proceedings u/s 132 of the Act in the case of Amod group as well as the assessee on 11.2..2009) ld. Assessing Officer observed that gift was received from Shri Jayant Sanghavi and the market value of these shares worked out at Rs. 46,80,540/-. Ld. Assessing Officer also observed that the donor Shri Jayant Sanghavi gave gift to assessee as well as other family members in the month of February and March, 2008 of equity shares of Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. for a total value of Rs. 4,70,58,686/-. Ld. Assessing Officer further observed that wife of the donor Smt. Vishakha J. Sanghavi entered into purchase transactions vide different deeds dated 23.04.2008 and 29.07.2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l vide order dated 29th April, 2013, (copy of judgment placed on record) on the ground that no question of law arises in the present tax appeal by the Revenue. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record and gone through the judgment of Hon. Jurisdictional High Court. Solitary grievance of the revenue is against the order of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 46,80,540/- held to be gift of shares. We observe that ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition has observed as under :- "6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has, in AY 2008-09 shown to have accepted gift in kind being equity shares of Sun Parmaceuticals Industries Ltd. respectively 2400 shares and 1650 shares vide declaration of gift deed dated 7.2.2008 and 17.3.2008. The donor is Shri Jayant Sanghavi not related to the assessee even distantly. The market value of these shares works out to Rs. 46,80,540/- on the day of declaration of gift. 6.1 In fact, the total amount of gifts received from Shri Jayant Sanghavi by the appellant and the family members in Feb./March, 2008 is Rs. 4,70,58,686/-. The AO has held that the gifts received in kind i.e. Shares of Sun Pharmaceu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me of the donor, and while he is still capable of giving. If the done dies before acceptance, the gift is void of In view of the above the requisites of a valid gift are : "(1) There should be a donor and a donee. (2) The subject of the gift must be certain and existing and capable of transfer. (3) The gift should be made voluntarily and without consideration. (4) There should be a transfer on the part of the donor. (5) There should be an acceptance by or on behalf of the donee during his life-time. (6) The acceptance must be at a time when the donor is alive and capable of giving. (7) Therefore, it necessarily follows that the donor and the donee must both be living. (8) In case of movable property, there must be either a registered instrument properly attested or delivery of possession." 9.9 The gift of shares in the case of appellant needs to be examined with reference to the most vital requisite of a valid gift i.e. it must be voluntary and without consideration. For this purpose it is important to note that: - . (i) Shri Jayant Sanghvi is not related to the appellant and its family even though they may belong to the same community. (ii) There is no other occasio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as part of the total sale consideration received from Shri Jayant Sanghvi on behalf of Smt. Vishakha Sanghvi to whom Gotri land has been sold, the amount of such undisclosed sale consideration arising from sale of Gotri land has to be taxed in the year in which the sale took place i.e. AY 2009-10. 9.12 In view of the above, the total gifts amounting to Rs. 4.70 crores. received by the appellant and his family members are in fact towards undisclosed sale consideration of Gotri land. The addition of Rs. 4.70 crores made in AY 2009-10 in the hands of the appellant and Shri Navin N. Patel (joint owners) of Rs. 2,35,00,0007- each on protective basis is confirmed on substantive basis. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 65,83,830/- in AY 2008-09 made on account of non-genuineness of gifts by treating it as part of total sale consideration is, hereby, deleted." 8. In view of the above findings, the addition of Rs. 46,80,5407- on account of gifts is deleted. Therefore, the second and third grounds of appeal are accordingly allowed, subject to above findings." 7. We also observe that similar issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of Shri Krupeshbhai N. Patel vs. DCIT, CC-1, Barod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e year under consideration. We hereby affirm the factual as well as the legal finding of the CIT(A), hence this ground of the Revenue is hereby dismissed and appeal is dismissed." 8. We further observe that Tax Appeal No.938 of 2012 in the case of CIT vs. Krupeshbhai N. Patel was dismissed by Hon. Jurisdictional High Court vide its order dated 29th April, 2013. Therefore, respectfully following the judgment of Hon. Gujarat High Court and the decision of the co-ordinate bench, we are of the view that ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 46,80,540/- as the gift which was part of the total gift received by family members at 4.70 crores formed part of the undisclosed sale consideration of Gotri land which took place during Asst. Year 2009-10 and, therefore, no addition was called for during Asst. Year 2008-09. Accordingly no interference is called for with the order of ld. CIT(A). We uphold the same. The ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 9. Other ground is general, hence no adjudication is needed. 10. As the appeal of Rrevenue is dismissed, the Cross Objection has become infructuous. The Cross Objection, therefore, is also dismissed. 11. In the result, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
