Kanika Chawla, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1724/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65560 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 11-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BANITA DEVI SR DR HEARING ON
• Keywords: Gift; Opportunity of being heard; Accommodation entries; Reason to believe
• Section: 147; 131; 148; 56

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: D NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S.KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1724/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 KANIKA CHAWLA, COMMISSIONER (APPEAL) B-32, VISHAL ENCLAVE XXIV, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI. PAN: AERPC9703R (ASSESSEE) (REVENUE T.A. NO. 1725/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 RAMESH CHAWLA (HUF) COMMISSIONER (APPEAL) B-32, VISHAL ENCLAVE XXIV, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. ASSESSEE BY: SHRI R.S. SINGHVI, ADV. REVENUE BY: SMT. BANITA DEVI, SR. DR. HEARING ON : 11/07/2012 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE DATE: .. ORDER PER I.C.SUDHIR, JM: IN THESE APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE ORDERS HAVE BEEN Q UESTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND FACTS I N RE- OPENING THE CASE AND CONFIRMING IN APPEAL, WITH APPLYING MIND TO FACTS AND LAWS. ITA NO. 1724 & 1725/DEL/2010 2 2. THAT AUTHORITIES ERRED IN NOT SUMMONING ALL THE CONCERNED PERSONS U/S 131, INSPITE OF SPECIFIC AND WRITTEN REQUEST MADE BY APPELLANT. 3. I.T.O. & CIT APPEAL GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT ENFORCING THE ATTENDANCE OF MR. DEEPAK JAIN, CA, WHO WAS NAMED A S THE MAN OF KNOWLEDGE OF FACTS. 4. THAT THE CIT APPEAL ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE LEGAL ISSUES RAISED BY THE APPLICANT. 5. THAT THE CIT (APPEAL) FAILS TO APPRECIATE THAT THE RE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO DISAPPROVE THE GIFT. 6. THAT CIT APPEAL ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE LAW LAID DOWN BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT ON THE ISSUES INV OLVE. 7. THAT THE CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ORDER OF I. T.O. IS BASED ON PRESUMPTION AND GUESS WORK CONTRARY TO TH E DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT. 8. THAT THE ORDER OF CIT APPEAL IS BAD IN LAW. 2. BESIDES, IN ITA NO. 1724/DEL/2010 VIDE GROUND NO. 9 THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO QUESTIONED CHARGING OF INTEREST U /S 234 B OF THE ACT. 3. FROM THE ABOVE COMMON GROUNDS WE FIND THAT THE ISSU ES INVOLVED ARE AS UNDER: (I) AS TO WHETHER RE-OPENING INITIATED IS VALID? (II) AS TO WHETHER THE GIFTS IN QUESTION WERE GENUINE? (III) THE THIRD ISSUED RAISED IN ITA NO. 1724/DEL/2010 IS REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234 B OF THE ACT. 4. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN BOT H THE APPEALS. ISSUE NO.-1 5. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEES DERIVED INTEREST INCOME FROM DEPOSITS IN THE BANKS AND ALSO FROM POST OFFICE IN THE CASE OF MR. RAMESH ITA NO. 1724 & 1725/DEL/2010 3 CHAWLA. HE DECLARED INCOME OF RS.45,000/- AND IN CA SE OF MS. KANIKA CHAWLA, SHE DECLARED INCOME OF RS.90,100/- IN THEIR RETURNS OF INCOME. THE AO RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM THE INCOME TAX OFFICER THAT MR. HARISH KUMAR, DONOR OF THE GIFT TO THE ASSESSEES HAS ADMIT TED IN HIS STATEMENTS ON OATH ON 28.3.2007 U/S 131 THAT HE HAD RECEIVED CASH FROM VARIOUS PARTIES AND HAD DEPOSITED THE SAME IN HIS ACCOUNT NO. 3756 WITH PUNJAB & SINDH BANK, FATEHPURI NEW DELHI AND THEN, TRANSFERRED THE AMOUN TS TO THE ACCOUNT NO. 3755 WITH THE SAME BANK AND ISSUED DRAFTS TO THE SA ID PARTIES UNDER SO CALLED GIFTS. ON RECEIPT OF THIS INFORMATION FROM ITO IN H IS LETTER NO. 164 DATED 21.1.2008, THE AO INITIATED REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S U/S 147 OF THE ACT. THE AO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS.1 CRORE EACH IN THE HANDS OF SH.RAMESH CHAWLA (HUF) AND MS. KANIKA CHAW LA WITH THIS FINDING THAT THE GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEES WE RE NOT GENUINE. THE AGGRIEVED ASSESSEES QUESTIONED THE SAID ACTION OF T HE AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) MAINLY ON TWO GROUNDS, FIRSTLY QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF RE-OPENING U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND SECONDLY, ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFTS. 6. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR IS THAT THE LD. CIT (A ) HAS NOT ADJUDICATED UPON THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BEFORE HIM REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING. IN SUPPORT HE REFERRED GROUND NO. 2 RAIS E BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AS -2. THAT THE LD. AO ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT ITA NO. 1724 & 1725/DEL/2010 4 U/S 148 WHICH IS NOT ONLY ILLEGAL, BUT ALSO AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. HE SUBMITTED FURTHER THAT SINCE THE I SSUE RAISED IS LEGAL IN NATURE WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER, IT MAY BE DIS POSED OFF EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT RETURNS OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEES FOR THE YEAR WERE PROCESSED U/S 143 (1) ON 3 RD MAY, 2005 AND THE INCOME RETURNED THEREIN WAS ACCEPTED. THE AO SUBSEQUENTLY ISSUED NO TICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM ITO THAT THE ASSESSEES HAVE RECEIVED GIFT OF RS.1 CRORE EACH FROM MR. HARISH KU MAR WHICH ARE BOGUS TRANSACTION. THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT THE AO HAD I SSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPLICATION OF HIS MIND TO THE FACT S AND STATEMENT OF MR. HARISH KUMAR. HE REFERRED CONTENTS OF REASONS RECOR DED IN SUPPORT. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN HIS STATEMENTS MR. HARISH KUMA R HAS NOT MADE ANY SPECIFIC ALLEGATION AGAINST THE ASSESSEES THAT THE GIFTS DONATED BY HIM TO THEM WERE BOGUS. THE AO ON THE BASIS OF GENERAL STATEMEN TS BY MR. HARISH KUMAR IMAGINED THAT THE GIFTS DONATED BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE ARE BOGUS. THE ITO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ONLY CALLED M R. P.L. BAJAJ BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 131 TO INVESTIGATE GIFT GIVEN BY MR. HAR ISH KUMAR TO HIM. HE ACCEPTED THAT ENTRY WAS ACCOMMODATION ENTRY AND ITO WAS JUSTIFIED IN ADDING THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF MR. HARISH KUMAR. BUT NO NOTICE U/S 131 WAS EVER ISSUED BY THE ITO TO OTHER PERSONS, WHOSE NAMES APPEARED IN THE ITA NO. 1724 & 1725/DEL/2010 5 BANK ACCOUNT OF MR. HARISH KUMAR, NEITHER HE ENFORC ED THEIR ATTENDANTS NOR MADE ANY INVESTIGATION IN RELATION TO THE GIFTS GIV EN BY MR. HARISH KUMAR TO MR. RAMESH CHAWLA (HUF) OR MS. KANIKA CHAWLA, THE A SSESSEES HEREIN. THE LD. AR POINTED OUT FURTHER THAT THE AO WHILE IS SUING NOTICE U/S 148 COMPLETELY IGNORED THAT THE IT ACT HAS GOT AMENDED W.E.F. A.Y. 2005-06 BY FINANCE ACT (NO. 2) 2004, WHERE THE GIFT TO THE PE RSON OTHER THAN RELATIVES IS TAXABLE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES U/S 56 (2) (V) . IN THE PRESENT CASE REOPENING IS LEGALLY NOT CORRECT BECAUSE THESE GIFT WERE EXECUTED IN AUGUST/ SEPTEMBER 2003. IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY BY THE AO THAT MR. HARISH KUMAR IS NOT DOING ANY BUSINESS. HE IS VERY MUCH ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS AND HAS BEEN FILING HIS INCOME TAX RETURN AND HIS DECLARED TURN OVER IS SUBJECT TO TAX AUDIT. EVEN THE ASSESSMENT OF MR. HARISH KUMAR HAS BEEN FRAMED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE INITIATION OF REOPENING AND ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 147 IN FURTHERANCE THERETO IS NOT VALID, THE LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: - CIT VS. ANTARTICA INVESTMENT (P) LTD. 262 ITR 493 ( DEL) - CIT VS. MS. MAYAWATI 338 ITR 51 (DEL) - ITO VS. LAKHAMANI MEWALDAS, 103 ITR 437 (S.C.) 7. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO. 1724 & 1725/DEL/2010 6 8. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS ESPECIALLY HAVING GONE THROUGH THE STATEMENTS OF MR. HARISH KUMAR, A COPY OF WHICH AND LEGIBLE TYPED COPY WHEREOF HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE AT PAGE NOS. 18 TO 26 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC ALLEGATION THAT T HE ASSESSEES BEFORE US HAD MANAGED GIFTS IN QUESTION FROM HIM BUT IN HIS STATE MENTS MR. HARISH KUMAR HAD STATED THAT HE WAS GIVING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES RELATING TO BOGUS GIFTS. IT IS NOT DISPUTED BEFORE US THAT THE SAME MR. HARI SH KUMAR HAS GIVEN GIFTS IN QUESTION TO THE ASSESSEES IN THE PRESENT CASE. T HUS THERE WAS SUFFICIENT REASON TO BELIEVE ON THE PART OF THE AO THAT THE GI FTS IN QUESTION GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEES ARE BOGUS. IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED PROPOSI TION OF LAW THAT FOR INVOCATION OF THE PROVISIONS U/S 147 THE REQUIREMEN T IS A PRIMA FACIE BELIEF OF THE AO THAT THERE IS ESCAPEMENT OF ASSESSABLE IN COME IN THE HANDS OF AN ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE DO NOT FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT THE PROVISIONS U/S 14 7 OF THE ACT WERE NOT VALIDLY INVOKED BY THE AO TO ACQUIRE JURISDICTION T O FRAME ASSESSMENT U/S 147 READ WITH 143 (3) OF THE ACT. THE ISSUE IS THUS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE RELATED GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4 ARE THUS R EJECTED. ISSUE NO. -2 9. WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED THE RELEVANT FACTS HEREIN ABOVE IN PREVIOUS PARAGRAPH UNDER ISSUE NO. 1. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR REMAINED THAT THE ITA NO. 1724 & 1725/DEL/2010 7 ASSESSEES HAD RECEIVED GIFT OF RS.1 CRORE EACH FROM MR. HARISH KUMAR THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS AS PER THE DETAILS GIVEN I N THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE WAS ALSO ASSESSED TO T AX. IN SUPPORT OF THE GIFT THE ASSESSEES HAD FURNISHED COPY OF GIFT DEEDS, AND AFFIDAVITS OF MR. HARISH KUMAR (PAGE NO. 27 & 28 OF THE PAPER BOOK). HE CONT ENDED THAT IN HIS STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE AO, MR. HARISH KUMAR HAS NOT MADE ANY ADVERSE COMMENTS IN RESPECT OF GIFTS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEES NOR HAS RAISED ANY DISPUTE REGARDING AUTHENTICITY AND CORRECTNESS OF G IFT DEEDS AND AFFIDAVITS. NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR LD. CIT (A) HAS A LLOWED THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS-EXAMINE MR. HARISH KUMAR IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE REASONS RECORDED FOR THE ASSESSMENT AND CONSEQUENTIAL ADDIT ION EVEN AFTER REPEATED REQUEST. IN SUPPORT THE LD. AR REFERRED PAGE NO. 1 1 AND 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE AO HAS MADE ADDITIONS IN QUESTION TREATIN G THE GIFTS AS BOGUS ON THE BASIS OF GENERAL STATEMENTS OF THE DONOR DESPIT E THIS FACT THAT IDENTITY OF DONOR AND HIS CREDITWORTHINESS IS NOT UNDISPUTED. T HE AMOUNT IN GIFT HAS BEEN GIVEN THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT HAS BEEN DECLARED BY MR. HARISH KUMAR IN HIS STATEMENTS MADE BEFORE THE AO AND THE SAME WAS ALSO SUBJECTED TO SCRUTINY WHEN HIS ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED. THE DONOR IS PAN CARD HOLDER WHAT HE DOES IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, DONEE HAS NO SAY IN IT. AS PER HI M IN THIS TRANSACTION, THE ITA NO. 1724 & 1725/DEL/2010 8 CASH DEPOSITED BY HIM IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT HAS BEEN TAXED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE LD. AR REFERRED PAGE NOS. 18 TO 26 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN COPY OF STATEMENTS OF MR. HARISH KUMAR ALON G WITH COPY OF TYPED VERSION HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE. HE POINTED OUT THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO PRODUCE MR. HARISH KUMAR, DONOR. THE AS SESSEES CONTACTED MR. HARISH KUMAR AT HIS ADDRESS AND REQUESTED HIM TO AP PEAR BEFORE THE AUTHORITY BELOW BUT HE TURNED DOWN THE REQUEST ON T HE BASIS THAT HE HAS BEEN ALREADY ASSESSED BY HIS ITO AND HUGE DEMAND HAS BEE N RAISED. HE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT HE HAS BEEN TAXED ON AL L HIS BANK TRANSACTIONS. HE ALSO ASSERTED THAT HE HAD ALREADY EXECUTED GIFT DEEDS AND AFFIDAVITS IN SUPPORT OF GIFTS GIVEN BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEES. HE ALSO INFORMED THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD NEVER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEES HAD GIV EN CASH TO HIM IN LIEU OF THE GIFTS. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES HAVE NO POWER TO FORCE MR. HARISH KUMAR TO APPEAR BEFORE THE AUTHORITY BEL OW BUT HIS PRESENCE IS REQUIRED IN THE CASE AS ASSESSEES WILL GET THE OPPO RTUNIY TO CROSS-EXAMINE HIM. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED FURTHER THAT IN A CASE OF REASSESSMENT, PRIMARY OWNS IS ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTABLISH THAT ANY INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND IF ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSES TO REL Y ON ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL, HE SHOULD PROVIDE REASONABLE OPPORTUNIY F OR CROSS-EXAMINE. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: ITA NO. 1724 & 1725/DEL/2010 9 - KISHAN CHAND CHELLA RAM.VS. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SUPREME COURT) - CIT VS. SMC SHARE BROKERS LTD. 288 ITR 345 (DEL) - PAWAN KUMAR JAIN VS. CIT 334 ITR 23 (DEL) - CIT VS. MS. MAYAWATI 338 ITR 563 (DEL) - CIT VS. SUNITA VACHANI (MRS) 184 ITR 121 (DEL) - CIT VS. R.S. SIBBAL 269 ITR 429 (DEL) - ACIT VS. PRECISION METAL WORKS (1985) 156 ITR 0693 (DEL) - CIT VS. NOOR JAHAN (P.K.) (SMT) 237 ITR 570 (SUPREM E COURT) 10. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND TRIED TO JUSTIFY THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE D ECISIONS REFERRED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THE ISSUE. 11. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS WE FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR AS IT IS VERY MUCH EVIDENT FROM THE STATEMENTS OF MR. HARISH KUMAR RECORDED BY THE AO U/S 131 OF THE ACT THAT HE IN HIS STATEMENTS HAS NOWHERE ALLEGED SPECIFICALLY THAT TH E GIFTS IN QUESTION GIVEN BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEES WERE BOGUS AND THE MONEY IN VOLVED THEREIN WAS THE MONEY OF THE ASSESSEES WHICH CAME TO HIM AND IN LIE U THEREOF HE HAD ISSUED ITA NO. 1724 & 1725/DEL/2010 10 CHEQUES OF GIFT AMOUNT. THE ASSESSEES WERE ALSO NOT GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE MR. HARISH KUMAR. IT IS AN ESTABLISHE D PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT STATEMENT OF A PERSON WITHOUT AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE HIM BY THE AFFECTED PERSON CANNOT BE RELIED UPON AND USED AGAINST THE SAID PERSON. THUS KEEPING IN MIND THE ABOVE DISCUSSED FACTS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF A POSITIVE EVIDENCE BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE GIFTS AMOUN T WERE ACTUALLY OF THE ASSESSEES, THERE WAS NO REASON TO DOUBT THE GENUINE NESS OF THE GIFTS IN QUESTION. BESIDES, IT ALSO REMAINED TO EXAMINE BY T HE AO THAT THE DONOR HAD ALREADY PAID TAX ON THE AMOUNT GIFTED TO THE ASSESS EES. THE LD. AR HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON A DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTI ONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PAWAN KUMAR JAIN VS. CIT (SUPRA) WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD CONTENDED THAT L HAD FILED A RETURN FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2006-07 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.1,48,50,705/- AND HAD PAID T AX. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE REVENUE HAD NOT SUFFERED ANY LO SS, IN ASMUCH AS THE TAXES WERE PAID BY L WHICH RECEIVED THE COMMISSION. SINCE THIS WAS VITAL INFORMATION AND HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW, THE MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO. SIMILARLY IN THE C ASE OF ACIT VS. PRECISION METAL WORKS (SUPRA), THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT H AS BEEN PLEASED TO HOLD THAT THE INCOME COULD EITHER BE THE INCOME OF THE FIRM OR IT COULD BE THE INCOME OF THE INDIVIDUAL PARTNERS. IT COULD NOT BE THE INCOME OF BOTH. ONCE ITA NO. 1724 & 1725/DEL/2010 11 HAVING ACCEPTED THE AMOUNT AS THE INCOME OF THE PAR TNERS THEMSELVES, IT COULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE FIRM. THE A SSESSMENT OF THE PARTNERS HAD RESULTED IN THE SUM BEING CHARGED TO TAX IN THE IR HANDS AND IT DID NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHETHER THE SUM WAS TAXED IN TH E HANDS OF THE PARTNERS OR IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM, HELD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. APPLYING THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THESE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE HOLD THAT IF THE DONOR HAS ALREADY PAID TAX ON THE AMOUNT GIFTED, THE SAME IS REQUIRED CONSIDERATION WHILE DECIDING THE ASSESSABI LITY OF THE SAME IN THE HANDS OF THE DONEE I.E. THE PRESENT ASSESSEES. WE T HUS IN THE INTEREST OF THE JUSTICE SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO AFFORD OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEES TO CROSS-EXAMINE SHRI HARISH KUMAR BY SEC URING HIS PRESENT BEFORE HIM AND TO EXAMINE THIS ASPECT OF THE CASE R EGARDING PAYMENT OF TAX ON THE GIFTED AMOUNT BY THE DONOR IN VIEW OF THE AB OVE STATED DECISIONS OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND DECIDE THE ISSUE ACCOR DINGLY AS PER THE LAW AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE A SSESSEE. THE GROUNDS INVOLVING THE ISSUE NO. 2 ARE THUS ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSE. 12. IN RESULT APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DAY 28 /09/2012. SD/- SD/- ( T.S. KAPOOR ) (I.C.S UDHIR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER UDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1724 & 1725/DEL/2010 12 DATED: 28 /09/2012 *AK VERMA* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR