Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, V. Shri Inderpalsingh Sahni, Nashik

ITA 1186/PUN/2016

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A)-2, Nashik, which had accepted the assessee's claim of a gift amounting to Rs.2,15,00,000 for the assessment year 2012-13. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the amount was not a gift but compensation for vacating land, as per the statements of the donor, Shri Birender Sahni. The Tribunal examined the evidences, including the donors' testimonies and forensic reports of the gift deed documents, and found inconsistencies that led to the conclusion that the gift claim was fabricated.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137337 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: AllowedAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 30-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 131; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B” : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.1186/PUN./2016 Assessment Year 2012-13 The ACIT, Circle-2, Room No.6, Wani House, Wokhard Hospital Compound, Nashik. Maharashtra. PIN 422 007 vs. Shri Inderpalsingh Sahni, 189, Satpur, Mahatma Nagar, Nashik – 422 007 PAN ACAPS6248Q (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sanket Joshi For Revenue : Shri Sardar Singh Meena & Shri M.G. Jasnani Date of Hearing : 31.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 02.02.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)-2, Nashik’s order dated 23.03.2016, passed in case No.Nsk/CIT(A)-2/798/14-15, involving proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The Revenue has pleaded the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : 2 ITA.No.1186/PUN./2016 Shri Inderpalsingh Sahni, Nashik. 1. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified is deleting the addition of Rs.2,15,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on the issue of claim of gift ? Tax Effect on this issue is Rs.66,43,500/- which is on the issue of claim of gift received from Shri Birender Sahni). 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the statement of Shri Birinder Sahni recorded u/s 131 on oath in which he clearly accepts that the amount given to Shri Inderpalsing Sahni is not gift but amount given for vacating land ? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in merely rely on the report of the technical expert regarding gift deed documents but neglected the fact that assessee has forcefully taken signature of Shri Birinder Sahni on those documents which was accepted by Shri Birinder Sahni in statement recorded under oath ? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in totally neglecting the fact that in both statement and cross examination, Shri Birinder Sahani has accepted that amount given by him to Shri Inderpalsingh Sahni is not gift but amount given for vacating land ? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred merely rely on report of technical expert submitted by assessee but not verified genuineness of forensic report or not given opportunity to AO to send it to another technical expert ? 6. The appellant prays leave to add, alter, clarify, amend and or withdraw any grounds of appeal as and when the occasion demands.” 3 ITA.No.1186/PUN./2016 Shri Inderpalsingh Sahni, Nashik. 3. Both the learned representatives next invited our attention to the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion accepting the assessee’s gift claim of Rs.2,15,00,000/- thereby reversing the assessment findings as follows : 4 ITA.No.1186/PUN./2016 Shri Inderpalsingh Sahni, Nashik. 5 ITA.No.1186/PUN./2016 Shri Inderpalsingh Sahni, Nashik. 6 ITA.No.1186/PUN./2016 Shri Inderpalsingh Sahni, Nashik. 7 ITA.No.1186/PUN./2016 Shri Inderpalsingh Sahni, Nashik. 8 ITA.No.1186/PUN./2016 Shri Inderpalsingh Sahni, Nashik. 4. Both the learned representatives reiterated their respective stands against and in support of the CIT(A)'s foregoing detailed discussion holding the assessee’s gift claim in issue as genuine. Mr. Joshi has further taken pains to file the assessee’s written submissions before us reading as follows : 9 ITA.No.1186/PUN./2016 Shri Inderpalsingh Sahni, Nashik. 10 ITA.No.1186/PUN./2016 Shri Inderpalsingh Sahni, Nashik. 11 ITA.No.1186/PUN./2016 Shri Inderpalsingh Sahni, Nashik. 12 ITA.No.1186/PUN./2016 Shri Inderpalsingh Sahni, Nashik. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing vehement rival stands and find no merit in assessee’s submissions. We make it clear first of all that there are total three donors herein namely Mr. Birender Singh Sahni [Rs.30 lakhs on 11.04.2011] with Smt. Ajit Kaur Sahni and Ms Harleen Kaur, daughter for Rs.1,45,00,000/- and Rs.40 lakhs on 04.05.2011, respectively. There is further no quarrel between the parties that the assessee had received the impugned sum totalling to Rs.2,15,00,000/- through banking channel only. And that the said third donor Ms. Harleen Kaur is undisputedly of unsound mind. A perusal of the Assessing Officer’s detailed discussion in his assessment order dated 26.03.2015 further suggests that the donor Mr. Birender Singh Sahni had clearly denied to have made this gift as per his statement dated December 13, 2014 recorded in the presence of his wife Smt. Ajit Kaur Sahni as well as the assessee’s son-in-law Shri Kulpal Singh with other two witnesses. This donor’s statement duly forms part of the case 13 ITA.No.1186/PUN./2016 Shri Inderpalsingh Sahni, Nashik. record before us at pages 184-186. The assessee thereafter sought cross-examination of the said donor which was duly granted by the assessing authority. The latter’s cross- examination dated 18.01.2015 is compiled at pages 181 to 183 in the assessee’s paper book. Learned counsel could hardly dispute the contents thereof at page-183 and more particularly, the said donor had categorically denied the assessee’s claim once again about the impugned gift deed(s). And that this assessee had not even put a suggestion to the said donor about the gift claim in issue so as to rebut his reply. All these facts forms sufficient material for us to conclude that the assessee’s gift claim herein seeking exemption from assessment of the impugned sum of Rs.2,15,00,000/- is totally a false one which deserves to be outrightly rejected. 5.1. Learned counsel at this stage again reiterated the assessee’s stand highlighting relation between all these parties, family disputes in the donor(s) family and their daughter-in-law, police complaints, development agreements etc. His case is that the said documentary evidence(s) duly taken note of in the CIT(A)'s order extracted hereinabove proves a clear cut case of the impugned gift as a genuine instance. 14 ITA.No.1186/PUN./2016 Shri Inderpalsingh Sahni, Nashik. 5.2. All these assessee’s arguments are found to be without any substance. We make it clear that whether or not there existed development agreements or criminal/police proceedings or any civil proceedings, as the case may be, hardly come to the assessee’s aid once we hold the impugned gift as a non-genuine one as the donor(s) have categorically denied any such confirmation in assessee’s favour. This is indeed coupled with the fact that their daughter Smt. Harleen Kaur is also of un-sound mind who could not even take care of herself as it transpires during the course of hearing. We thus conclude that dehors all other proceedings, the assessee’s impugned claim of having received the impugned gift by seeking to super impose the alleged unconditional love and affection on his uncle’s family deserve to be declined at least for income tax purposes as our instant adjudication is confined to the addition made by the Assessing Officer only. We thus accept the Revenue’s instant sole substantive grievance. The Assessing Officer’s findings making the impugned addition of Rs.2,15,00,000/- in assessee’s hands stands revived in these peculiar facts and circumstances. Ordered accordingly. 6. This Revenue’s appeal is allowed in above terms. 15 ITA.No.1186/PUN./2016 Shri Inderpalsingh Sahni, Nashik. Order pronounced in the open Court on 02.02.2023. Sd/- Sd/- [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 02 nd February, 2023 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Ld. CIT(A) concerned. 4. The CIT concerned 5. D.R. ITAT, Pune “B” Bench, Pune 6. Guard File. //By Order// Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches Pune.