ITO, JODHPUR V. Shri Surendra Kumar Jaggi, JODHPUR

ITA 184/JODH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4909 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R H GOHEL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL BHANSALI
• Keywords: Gift

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL: JODHPUR BENCH : JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO. 184/JODH/2013 (A.Y. 2008-09) THE ITO VS. SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR JAGGI WARD 1(4) PROP. M/S MANOHARLAL & SONS JODHPUR STATION ROAD, JODHPUR PAN N O. AALPJ 8516 D [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANIL BHANSALI DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI R.H. GOHEL DATE OF HEARING : 30/07/2013. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29/08/2013. O R D E R PER HARI OM MARATHA, J.M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2008-09 IS DIR ECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), JODHPUR DATED 21/01/2013. 2 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE AS AN INDIVIDUAL, CARRIED ON THE BUSINESS OF SECURITIES/C OMMODITIES AND TRADING IN DERIVATIVES. FOR A.Y. 2008-09, HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME [ROI] ON 3.9.2008 DECLARING TOTAL LOSS OF RS. 67,32 ,723/-. IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED GIFT OF RS. 19 LAKHS FROM HIS SON SHRI KIRAN KUMAR JAGGI WHO IS RESIDING IN DUBAI. I N ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF SHRI K.K. JAGGI, HIS FATHE R, THE PRESENT ASSESSEE, WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE GENUINITY OF THI S GIFT. IT WAS EXPLAINED THROUGH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 29.12.2 010 THAT THIS GIFT IS GENUINE AND HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FR OM HIS SON OUT OF NATURAL LOVE AND AFFECTION AND SPECIFICALLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SUFFERING LOSSES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO P RODUCED A CONFIRMATION AND CERTIFICATE OF GIFT FROM HIS SON. THE PROOF REGARDING RECEIPT OF GIFT IN QUESTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL WERE ALSO PRODUCED. EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF BUSINESS CARD OF HIS SON WAS ALSO FURNISHED ALONGWITH WITH A COPY OF HIS PASSPORT. H IS SON WAS HAVING A VISA IN THE CAPACITY OF A PARTNER AND HAVING MAJOR STAKES IN TWO LIMITED LIABILITIES COMPANIES IN DUBAI WHICH WERE PURSUANT TO BUSINESS OF GARMENTS FOR THE LAST ABOUT TEN YEARS. IT WAS EXPL AINED THAT SHRI K.K. JAGGI WAS AN EXISTING ASSESSEE UNDER THE I.T. ACT W HO HAD BEEN REGULARLY FILING HIS RETURNS OF INCOME. HIS PAN WA S ALSO SUPPLIED. IN 3 THE LIGHT OF THESE EVIDENCES, IT WAS PLEADED THAT S UFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF IDENTITY, CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE DONOR AS WELL AS THE GENUINITY OF THE TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED. BUT THE A.O. WAS NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF HIS SO N ONLY BECAUSE THE PROOF OF EARNING OF HIS SON, SPECIFICALLY WAS NOT P RODUCED. ACCORDINGLY, BY TREATING THIS GIFT OF RS. 19 LAKHS AS INGENUINE, HE HAS ADDED THIS AMOUNT AS ASSESSEES UNDISCLOSED INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL AND THE LD. CIT(A) BEING SATISFIED THAT THE GIFT CAME THROUGH PROPER BANKING CHANNEL, AND THE DONOR APPEARED BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT AND HAS ALSO G IVEN ALL REQUISITE DETAILS, GO TO PROVE THAT THE DONOR IS CREDIT WORTH Y. THEREFORE, HE HAS DELETED THIS ADDITION FROM THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E. NOW THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE CAR EFULLY PERUSED THE ENTIRE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT WAS ARGUED BY TH E LD. D.R. THAT IN THE INDIAN SOCIAL PATTERN, THE GIFT FROM SON TO HIS FAT HER DOES NOT SEEM TO BE A NATURAL ONE. HE ALSO ARGUED THAT ONLY BECAUSE CONFIRMATION ON LETTER-HEAD GIVING NUMBER OF CHEQUE ALONGWITH DATES , NOT SUPPORTED 4 WITH BANK STATEMENT OF THE DONOR WOULD NOT PROVE TH E GIFT AS GENUINE. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE STATEMENT OF THE DONOR T HAT HE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TEXTILE AND GARMENTS UNDER THE N AME LONDON FASHION, MEENA BAZAR, DUBAI, UAE AND NEW LONDON FAS HION, MEENA BAZAR, DUBAI, UAE WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE CANNOT BE TREATED AS CORRECT PROOF OF CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. A.R. HAS SUPPORTED TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND HAS REITERATED THE ARGUMENTS TAKEN BEFORE HIM. HE ALSO VEHEMENTLY STATED THAT THE GIF T IS GENUINE GIVEN OUT OF LOVE AND AFFECTION, WHICH IS N ATURAL BETWEEN SON AND FATHER. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE GIFT BY SON TO HIS FATHER WHO IS UNDERGOIN G A SET- BACK IN HIS BUSINESS TANTAMOUNT TO CONSONANCE WITH SOCIAL PRACTICE WHEREBY A SON HAS TO HELP HIS FATHER BY G IVING MONEY ETC WHICH ARE CALLED IN LOCAL PARLANCE AS GI FT. THE IDENTITY OF THE DONOR IS NOT IN DOUBT, THE GENUINIT Y OF THE GIFT CANNOT EVEN BE DOUBTED IN THE GIVEN FACTS WHICH REM AIN CONTROVERTED. THE SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE DONOR HA S BEEN 5 APTLY EXPLAINED THAT MONEY HAS COME FROM ABROAD THR OUGH BANKING CHANNELS AS PER LAW. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO ALLEGATION THAT THE ASSESSEES OWN MONEY HAS TRAVEL LED AND COME BACK IN THE FORM OF GIFT. THERE CAN BE 101 AR GUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THIS ISSUE IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. HOWEVER, THE PREPONDERA NCE OF NATURAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND EVIDENCE PRODUCED SPEAK I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DONOR IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSIN ESS IN DUBAI AND GIVEN NAMES OF COMPANIES/CONCERNS IN WHIC H HE IS PARTNER. THERE IS NOTHING UNNATURAL IN GIVING GIFT TO A FATHER BY HIS SON. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRM ITY IN THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, DISMISS TH E APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH AUGUST, 2013. SD/- SD/- [N.K. SAINI] [HARI OM MARATHA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 29 TH AUGUST, 2013. VL/ 6 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT BY ORDER 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, JODHPUR