Shri Prakshchandra Singhvi,HUF, Surat V. The Income tax Officer, Range-9, Surat

ITA 1684/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 168420514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 21-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S A BOHRA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 131; 68

Judgement Text

-1- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH 'SMC' BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1684/AHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:-2002-03) PRAKASHCHANDRA SINGHVI (HUF), C/O B/H KABIRWADI, A K ROAD, SURAT V/S THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, RANGE-9, SURAT PAN: AACHP 4948 J [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] APPELLANT BY :- SHRI HARDIK VORA, AR RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI S A BOHRA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING:- 21-09-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:- 23-09-2011 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF THE ASSESSEE WH ICH HAS EMANATED FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)V, SURAT [THE CIT(A)] DATED 1 1-03-2011. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS FOLLOW S:- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WEL L AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.3,00,000/- U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OF G IFT RECEIVED. 2 AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT O RDER PASSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 254 OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT], DATED 07-10-2008, THE 2 ITA NO.1684/AHD/2011 ISSUE HAD ONCE GONE UPTO THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD AND VI DE ORDER DATED 01-12-2006 IN ITA NO.1631/AHD/2006 (AY 2002-0 3),IT WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER [AO FOR SHORT]. CONSEQUENCE THEREUPON THE CASE WAS AGAIN FI XED FOR HEARING. IT WAS NOTED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD RECEIVED TOTAL GIFTS OF RS.3,00,000/- FROM THREE PERSONS, VI Z., MALCHAND C JAT, BHANUPRATAP B SARSWA AND BHANWARLAL B OJHA,OF RS.1,00,000/- EACH. THE ASSESSEES MAIN CONTENTION WAS THAT THEIR PAN CARDS , BANK PASSBOOKS, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF RETURNS ALONG WITH DECLARATION OF DEED OF GIFT WERE FILED BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, THEREFORE, THE GIFTS WERE GENUINE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT HAD ASKED THE AS SESSEE TO PRODUCE THOSE DONORS. THOSE DONORS COULD NOT BE PRO DUCED THOUGH A NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES WERE GRANTED TO TH E ASSESSEE. EVEN IN THE SECOND ROUND OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THOSE DONORS WERE NOT PRODUCED AS PER THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- 8.1 IN FACT, THE ONUS CASTED UPON IN THE REVENUE BY THE HON'BLE I.T.A.T. IS FULLY DISCHARGED BY CONDUCTING PROPER S POT INQUIRIES IN CASES OF THREE DONORS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NONE OF THE DONORS WERE FOUND AT THE ADDRESSES GIVEN IN RETURNS OF INC OME OR PAN CARDS. FURTHER, IT IS ESTABLISHED ON THE BASIS OF THE STA TEMENT OF THE ACTUAL OCCUPIER OF THE CONCERNED PREMISES THAT NO S UCH PERSONS EVER RESIDED AT THE PREMISES MENTIONED IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME/ PAN CARDS. IN THIS WAY, THE REVENUE HAS ALREADY DISCHAR GED THE ONUS OF FINDING THE DONORS FOR EXAMINATION BUT BECAUSE OF T HE FACT THAT ALL THE ADDRESSES WERE FOUND BOGUS/FAKE. IN THIS SITUATION, THE UNDERSIGNED HAD NO OPTION BUT TO REQUEST THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUC E THREE DONORS BY THE ASSESSEE. FOR THIS, A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISS UED ON 22.08.2008 STATING TO COMPLY THE SAME BY 05.09.2008, BUT THERE IS NO COMPLIANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF NATURAL JUSTICE, O NE MORE OPPORTUNITY WAS OFFERED TO THE ASSESSEE BY A LETTER DATED 10.09 .2008. EVEN AFTER TWO OPPORTUNITIES AND AMPLE TIME OFFERED TO THE ASS ESSEE, THERE IS NO COMPLIANCE IN RESPECT OF PRODUCTION OF THREE DONORS IN QUESTION WHO 3 ITA NO.1684/AHD/2011 HAVE GIVEN GIFTS TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EVEN FURNISHED THE CORRECT ADDRESSES OR PRESENT ADDRESSES WHERE TH E THREE DONORS ARE AVAILABLE SO THAT THE UNDERSIGNED CAN SUMMON AND EX AMINE THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFTS GIVEN BY THEM. THE TIME AL LOWED TO THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSE E BUT IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IT IS BELIEVE D THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO COOPERATE IN RESPECT OF EITHER PRO DUCING THE DONORS OR GIVING CORRECT ADDRESSES WHERE THESE DONORS ARE AVA ILABLE AT PRESENT. 2.1 FROM THE ABOVE PARA IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE DONORS WERE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE ADDRESSES GIVEN BY THE AS SESSEE. IT WAS FINALLY HELD THAT THOSE PERSONS WERE NOT GENUINE AN D IN THE RESULT BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT , THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF GIFTS OF RS.3,00,000/- WAS AGAIN TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 THE ASSESSEE HAS AGAIN CHALLENGED THE SAID ADDITI ON. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE ACTION O F THE AO WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE REASONS GIVEN BY ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND ALSO THE SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANT. AFTER PERUSING T HE FACTS OF THE CASE AND MATERIALS ON RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ALSO IN THE FRESH ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF HONOURABLE ITAT, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TRIED TO MAKE INQUIRY OF DONORS FROM WHOM THE GIFT HAS BEEN RECEI VED. HOWEVER, IT HAS BEEN FOUND BY HIM THAT DONORS NEVER RESIDED AT THE ADDRESSES MENTIONED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, AND ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO GIVE RECENT ADDRESS OF THE DONORS. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED ASSESSEE TO GIVE DETAILS RELATING TO NEW ADDRESS OF DONORS DURING THE COURSE OF FRESH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT HOWEVER, ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY COMPLIANCE. IN VIEW OF SUCH FACTS, IT IS N OT POSSIBLE TO MAKE PROPER VERIFICATION OF GIFTS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE. ALTHOUGH, ASSESSEE HAS FILED VARIOUS DETAILS AS MENTIONED ABOVE YET IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO FULLY VERIFY THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS O F DONORS & THUS, ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONFIRMED. 4 ITA NO.1684/AHD/2011 THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN NOW CHALLENGED BEFORE U S. 4 FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED AR MR. HARDIK VORA APPEARED AND HIS MAIN CONTENTION WAS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT THE REVENUE SHOULD NOT SHIRK ITS RESP ONSIBILITY FOR ESTABLISHING PHYSICAL PRESENCE ESPECIALLY WHEN ALLO TTED PAN. THEREFORE, ONUS WAS ON THE REVENUE TO ESTABLISH THE WHEREABOUTS OF THE DONORS, LD. A.R. HAS CONTESTED. THE LEARNED AR HAS ALSO QUOTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD MADE AN OBSERVATION TH AT THE WANT OF ADDRESSES WAS A MYSTERY. THE LEARNED AR HAS CONT ESTED THAT THE AO WAS UNDER A STRICT OBLIGATION TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE AO WAS EXPECTED TO FIRST EXAMINE THE REVENUE RECORDS OF THOSE DONORS SINCE ALL OF THEM HAVE FILE D THEIR INCOME-TAX RETURNS AND IN SUPPORT HAVE FILED THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ALONG WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE PAN NU MBERS. FOR THIS LEGAL PROPOSITION, THE LEARNED AR HAS PLAC ED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CA SE OF ADYA EXPORTS VS. JT. CIT [2009] 18 DTR (CHD) (TRIB) 82; BASUDEO PRASAD AGARWALLA VS. ITO & ORS. [1989) 180 ITR 388 (CAL) AND CIT VS. KAMLA TOWN TRUST [1992] 198 ITR 191 (ALL). 5 FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, THE LEARNED DR SHRI S A BOHRA HAS STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW. THE LEARNED DR HAS MENTIONED PARA 13.1 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 01-12-2006 (SUPRA) AS FOLLOWS:- 13.1 KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE, IN THE INTEREST OF J USTICE, RESTORE THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT S BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTIONS THAT THE SAME WILL BE DECIDED 5 ITA NO.1684/AHD/2011 AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER KEEPING IN VIEW THEIR INCOME-TAX RECORDS AND ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE A PROPER OPPORTUN ITY OF BEING HEARD. HE HAS, THEREFORE, ARGUED THAT THE DIRECT IONS WERE TO DECIDE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO CLARIFIED THAT THE ISSUE WAS RELATED TO THE GENUINE NESS OF THE GIFTS AND FOR THAT PURPOSE, THE AO WAS DIRECTED TO PROVID E A PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. EVEN IN THE SECOND ROUND OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRO DUCED THOSE DONORS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT INFORMED THE REAS ON FOR NON- PRODUCTION OF THOSE DONORS. IT WAS VERY ASTONISHING THAT THE AO HAD MADE ALL EFFORTS BUT FINALLY IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ADDRESSES GIVEN IN THE INCOME-TAX RECORDS WERE BOGUS AND THE DONORS WERE NOT GENUINE. THE ADDRESSES GIVEN IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME OR THE ADDRESSES GIVEN IN THEIR PAN CARDS WERE NOT CORRECT , THEREFORE, UNDER THOSE COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES THE GIFTS WERE HELD AS BOGUS GIFTS. THE LEARNED DR HAS ALSO CONTESTED THAT MERELY BY FILING INCOME-TAX RETURN A TRANSACTION BY ITSELF CA NNOT BE ACCEPTED AS A GENUINE TRANSACTION ESPECIALLY WHEN A DONOR HAS TO TESTIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION OF GIFT. HE HAS STRONGLY PLEADED TO AFFIRM THE ADDITION. 6 I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES CAREFULLY. I HAVE ALS O PERUSED ALL THE ORDERS DELIVERED IN THE PAST. SINCE THE LEARNED AR HAS PLEADED THAT THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL WERE NO T ADHERED TO BY THE AO, THEREFORE, I DEEM IT PROPER TO REPRODUCE SO ME OF THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE RESPECTED COORDINATE B ENCH AS FOLLOWS:- 6 ITA NO.1684/AHD/2011 11 COMING TO THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS REVEALED THA T THE ASSESSEE, TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS PUT ON HIM HAS FURNISHED THE GIF T-DEEDS DULY CONFIRMING FACTUM OF GIFT EXECUTED BY ALL THE THREE DONORS, THEIR PANS IN SUPPORT OF THE FACT THAT ALL THE THREE DONORS WE RE EXISTING INCOME-TAX PAYERS, COPIES OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, FOR ALL THE DON ORS FOR FURNISHED THEIR RETURNS OF INCOME FOR ASST YEAR 2002-03 AND C OPIES OF CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEETS OF ALL THE THREE DONORS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2001-02 DULY SHOWING THE FACTUM OF GIFTS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF THE DONORS. 12 IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY EASY FOR US TO ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES CASE THAT THE GIFTS WERE GENU INE AND DONORS WERE IN A CAPACITY TO MAKE THE GIFTS, BUT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVING NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXAMINE ANY OF THESE DONORS AND TH AT TOO FOR WANT OF THEIR CORRECT ADDRESSES, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO A CCEPT THE ASSESSEES VERSION. WE ARE, FURTHER, OF THE OPINION, THAT WHEN ALL THE DONORS ARE EXISTING ASSESSEES AND HAVE FURNISHED THEIR RETURNS OF INCOME FOR ASST. YEARS 2002-03, THEN INABILITY OF THE REVENUE TO FI ND THE WHEREABOUTS OF THE DONORS AND THAT TOO, FOR WANT OF ADDRESSES IS A MYSTERY. ONCE THE REVENUE ALLOTS A PAN AND ASSESSEE THE PERSON, T HE ONUS IS ON THE REVENUE ALSO TO ESTABLISH THE PHYSICAL AVAILABILITY OF THAT ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE CANNOT SHIRK ITS RESPONSIBILITY FOR EST ABLISHING THE PHYSICAL PRESENCE OF AN ASSESSEE. 13 IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE REVENUES CASE IS THAT NOTICE U/S 131 OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE SERVED FOR WANT OF CORRECT ADD RESSES AND WHEN EFFORTS WERE MADE TO CONTACT THEM PERSONALLY, THEY WERE NOT FOUND AT THE GIVEN ADDRESSES. BUT THIS STAND OF THE REVENUE ALSO CAN BE ACCEPTED ONLY WHEN REVENUE DECLARES PANS ALLOTTED T O THEM AS WELL AS THEIR ASSESSMENTS AS ILLEGAL AND BOGUS; MEANING THEREBY THAT TILL THE PANS ALLOTTED TO THE DONORS ARE CANCELLED AND THE A SSESSMENTS MADE IN THEIR NAMES ARE DECLARED TO BE ILLEGAL, REVENUES C ASE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED BECAUSE THE PERSONS MAY NOT BE COMING FORW ARD FOR SO MANY REASONS. 6.1 THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE AS DEALT WITH BY THE TRIBUNAL WAS THAT ON ONE HAND THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED GIF T DEEDS, PAN NUMBERS AND COPIES OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF THE RETUR NS OF THE DONORS BUT THEY WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. TH E TRIBUNAL HAS ADMITTED THE FACT THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES WERE NOT IN A 7 ITA NO.1684/AHD/2011 POSITION TO EXAMINE THOSE DONORS AS THEY WERE NOT P RESENT BEFORE THE AO. IT WAS ALSO NOTED BY THE RESPECTED COORDINA TE BENCH IT WAS MYSTERY THAT THEIR ADDRESSES WERE ALSO NOT CORR ECT. DUE TO THIS REASON, THE TRIBUNAL HAS QUOTED THAT IT WAS NO T POSSIBLE TO ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES VERSION. RATHER, THE TRIBUNAL WAS SKEPTICAL IN ONE OF THE OBSERVATIONS THAT WHEN ALL THE DONORS WERE IN EXISTENCE AND HAVE FURNISHED THEIR INCOME-TAX RETUR NS, THEN, IT WAS MYSTERY THAT WHY THOSE DONORS WERE NOT AVAILABL E AT THE ADDRESSES MENTIONED IN THE INCOME-TAX RECORDS. AT T HAT TIME AS WELL THE REVENUE HAS CONTESTED THAT FOR WANT OF COR RECT ADDRESSES, NOTICES U/S 131 COULD NOT BE SERVED. RAT HER, IT WAS INFORMED THAT EFFORTS WERE MADE TO CONTACT THEM PER SONALLY BUT THEY WERE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE GIVEN ADDRESSES. AT THAT TIME AS WELL THE RESPECTED COORDINATE BENCH HAS COMMENTED T HAT THE STAND OF THE REVENUE CAN BE ACCEPTED IF IT DECLARES THAT PANS ALLOTTED TO THEM WERE ILLEGAL AND BOGUS. IN THE SEC OND ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS THAT MYSTERY HAS ALSO BEEN RESOLVED AND NO AMBIGUITY WAS LEFT WHEN ON VERIFICATION AND ON PERS ONAL INSPECTION IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ADDRESSES GIVEN TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT AS PER INCOME-TAX RETURNS FILED OR AS PE R THE ADDRESSES GIVEN FOR ALLOTMENT OF PAN CARDS WERE BOG US. IN ANY CASE, ADMITTED FACTUAL POSITION IS THAT THE DONORS WERE NOT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO. THIS PRELIM INARY ONUS OF PRODUCTION OF DONORS FOR VERIFICATION OF GENUINE NESS OF THE GIFT WAS ADMITTEDLY NOT DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWE VER, ATTEMPTS WERE MADE FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE TO TRACE THEM. INDEED, IT IS NEXT TOO IMPOSSIBLE TO CATCH HOLD A P ERSON FOR INCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS IF HE IS NOT AVAILABLE AT TH E ADDRESS 8 ITA NO.1684/AHD/2011 PROVIDED TO THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. RATHER, IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO INFORM THE CORRECT ADDRESSES OF THE DONORS. IT WAS ALSO PRIMARY ONUS OF THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE DO NORS IN SUPPORT OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE T HE AO. MERELY FILING GIFT-DEEDS, PAN CARDS, INCOME-TAX RET URNS, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, ETC. DID NOT BY ITSELF DISCHARGE THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PRELIMINARY BURDEN TO ESTABLISH THE GENUIN ENESS OF THE GIFTS. IT IS A UNIVERSAL FACT THAT OCCURRENCE OF GI FT IS A VERY PERSONAL MATTER AND THEREFORE IT IS EXPECTED FROM T HE DONEE, I.E., THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE GI FTS WITH SINCERITY. IT IS WRONG ON THE PART OF THE LEARNED A R TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD EXONERATED THE ASSESSEE FROM DISCHARGING THE PRELIMINARY ONUS OF PRODUCING THE DONORS. IT IS ALSO WRONG ON THE PART OF THE LEARNED AR TO STRESS UPON THAT THE AO HAD NOT FOLLOWED THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL. ON THE PAR T OF THE AO, MAXIMUM EFFORTS WERE MADE TO CONTACT THOSE DONORS A T THE ADDRESSES AS WERE AVAILABLE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ASS ESSMENT RECORDS. NONE OF THE DONORS WERE STATED TO BE FOUND AT THE ADDRESSES GIVEN IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RETURNS OF INCO ME OR AT THE ADDRESSES MENTIONED ON PAN CARDS. FURTHER, THE CASE LAW CITED BY THE LEARNED AR DOES NOT AT ALL MATCH WITH THE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. RATHER, IN THE CASE OF L ALCHAND KALRA 22 CTR 135 (P&H) THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD TH AT A GIFT FROM A STRANGER SHALL NOT BE HELD AS A GENUINE GIFT IF NOT ESTABLISHED FROM ALL CORNERS. FURTHER, IN A VERY LA TEST DECISION PRONOUNCED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF SAJJANDAS N SONS 264 ITR 435, IT IS HELD THAT MERE MOVEMENT OF MONEY THROUGH CHEQUE DO NOT JUSTIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT. 9 ITA NO.1684/AHD/2011 IN ONE MORE DECISION CIT VS ANIL KUMAR 292 ITR 552 ( DEL.)ONE OF REASON GIVEN FOR REJECTING THE GIFTS WAS THE NO N-APPEARANCE. IN AN ANOTHER CASE OF CIT VS P.MOHANKALA 291 ITR 27 8 ( S.C) THE GENUINENESS WAS DOUBTED AND THEREFORE GIFTS WERE RE JECTED.IN THE CASE OF YASH PAL GOEL 310 ITR 75 THE ABSENCE OF CAP ACITY WAS THE REASON FOR REJECTION OF CALIM OF GIFT. ALL THES E DECISIONS ARE VERY MUCH IN PUBLIC DOMAIN AND EXPECTED TO BE KNOWN TO BOTH THE PARTIES. UNDER THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE A.O. HAD STRICT LY ADHERED TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE OVERALL OBSERVA TIONS MADE IN THE JUDGMENT WAS ABOUT NON-DISCHARGING THE PRELIMIN ARY ONUS OF PRODUCING THE DONORS, HENCE, THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED I N REJECTING THE CLAIM BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. I, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). GROUD REJECTED. 7 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT TODAY ON 23-08-2011 SD/- (MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 23-09-2011 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. PRAKASHCHANDRA SINGHVI (HUF), C/O B/H KABIRWADI, A K ROAD, SURAT 2. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, RANGE-9, SURAT 10 ITA NO.1684/AHD/2011 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)-V, SURAT 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH-SMC, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD