9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (11) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a credit balance of Rs. 52,186 with the firm M/s Jagdamba Rice Mills, as on 1st April, 1975. A sum of Rs. 25,000 was credited to her account on 21st Feb., 1976. This amount of Rs. 25,000 was said to have been received by the assessee from her brother Shri Ram of village Kalsana, Distt. Kurukshetra. After once the assessment in the case of the assessee was framed under s. 143(3), the ITO finding the said gift resorted to proceedings under s. 148 and added the said amount of Rs. 25,000 finding certain discrepancies in the statement of Shri Ram, on one hand, and Sat Pal Gupta, on the other hand, as observed by him in para 3 of the assessment order. In the course of reassessment proceedings, the ITO examined both donor Shri Ram and Sat Pal Gupt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat since the assessee had got the relief and the total amount of Rs. 25,000 was deleted by the AAC, it was not considered worthwhile to go in cross objection or second appeal before the Tribunal. He submitted that the said amount of Rs. 25,000 had been subjected to gift-tax and drew our attention to pages 4,6 and 7 of the assessee's compilation and several other accounts, those of the assessee pertaining to asst. yrs. 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76 in the books of M/s Jagdamba Rice Mills and also the accounts of M/s Ram Parshad Sita Ram in the books of M/s Jagdamba Rice Mills and source of said amount in the hands of Shri Ram. He placed reliance on the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in the case of Gumani Ram Siri Ram vs. CIT (1975) 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no dispute about the fact that the said amount was subjected to gift-tax. We are constrained to remark that statements of Sri Ram and Sat Pal Gupta recorded on 18th July, 1978 were not made available to us by the ld. Deptl. Rep. Even the statement of Sri Ram dt. 3rd Aug., 1978 recorded by the ITO was not placed by the ld. Deptl. Rep. before us. We also observe that the amount of Rs. 25,000 was deposited in the books of M/s Ram Parshad Sita Ram in the name of Sri Ram on 1st April, 1974 and how the said amount travelled from 1st April, 1974 to 21st Feb., 1976 when it came to be introduced in the books of the assessee, is detailed in the order of the AAC. The order of the AAC calling the said gift as bogus, on one hand, and admitting the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e some were made available to the assessee by the ITO in spite of the assessee's application dt. 10th Feb.,1980, yet when we peruse the orders of the two lower authorities projecting the discrepancies between the two statements of Sri Ram and Sat Parshad, according to us, there is no discrepancy of the type which could be fatal to the assessee's claim. We are also fortified in our finding on the issue by the decision in the case of Gumani Ram Siri Ram. 6. Before we part with the issue, we may also mention that though the assessee is neither in appeal nor in cross objection before us on the issue regarding the observation made by the AAC pertaining to the gift but it is trite law by now that even as a respondent the assessee could support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
