DCIT, Cir 20(1), V. Guneet Kaur Chadha,

ITA 2280/DEL/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87117 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 17-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASANTHAN
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 131; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R.S. SYAL , A.M. & SH. C.M. GARG , J.M. ITA NO. 2280 /DEL / 2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003 - 04 DY. COMMISSIONER OF VS. SMT. GUNEET KAUR CHADHA, INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE 20(1), 55, GULABI BAGH, DELHI NEW DELHI (PAN: ACWPC9064A ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. T. VASANTHAN, SR. DR RESPONDEN T BY: SH. TARANDEEP SINGH, FCA DATE OF HEARING: 17.03.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18.03.2015 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, A.M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 17.01.2007 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.17.00 LAC MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) . 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THREE GIFTS TOTALING RS. 17 LACS AS UNDER: NAME OF THE DONOR DATE OF GIFT AMOUNT 1. SH. MANMEET PAL SINGH 29.08.2002 RS. 8 LACS 2. SH. HARMINDER SINGH 20.06.2002 RS. 7 LACS 3. SH. PARVEEN KUMAR 17.05.2002 RS . 2 LACS 2 ITA NO. 2280/DEL /2007 AY : 2003 - 0 4 4. ON B EING CALLED UPON TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS OF THESE CREDITS, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ABOVE AMOUNTS REPRESENTED GIFTS FROM DIFFERENT DONORS, THE FIRST TWO BEING , NON - RESIDENT INDIANS AND THE THIRD ONE BEING , AN INDIAN. IN SUPPORT OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFTS FROM EACH OF THE NRI DONORS, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: A) THE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE GIFT BY THE ASSESSEE. B) THE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FROM THE DONOR. C) THE COPY OF THE GIFT CHEQUE FROM THE DONOR. D) THE BANK CERTIFICATE REGARDING THE RECEIPT OF FUNDS FROM NRE ACCOUNT. 5. WITH REGARD TO GIFT FROM SH. PARVEEN KUMAR, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: A) THE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE GIFT BY THE ASSESSEE. B) THE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FROM THE DONOR. C) THE COPY OF THE PAN D) THE COPY OF RATION CARD. E) THE COPY OF I.T. AND W.T. RETURN. 6. THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED TO PRODUCE THE THIRD DONOR, NAME LY, SH. PARVEEN KUMAR WHO WAS INDIAN R ESIDENT. THE ASSESSEE EXPRESSED HER INABILITY TO PRODUCE SH. PARVEEN KUMAR. THEREAFTER, SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF SH. PARVEEN KUMAR FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AL SO DEPUTED INSPECTOR TO SERVE THE SUMMONS WHO REPORTED ON 06.01.2006 THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH PERSON AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR BY ORDER - SHEET ENTRY DATED 17.01.2006 AND WAS REQUESTED TO ESTABLISH THE I DENTITY OF THE DONOR. THE ASSESSEE VIDE HER LETTER DATED 20.01.2006, SUBMITTED A COPY OF RATION CARD IN 3 ITA NO. 2280/DEL /2007 AY : 2003 - 0 4 WHICH NAMES OF ALL THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF SH. PARVEEN KUMAR WERE LISTED, A COPY OF PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER ALLOTTED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT; A COPY OF WEALTH TAX RETURN FILED BY SH. PARVEEN KUMAR; A COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INCOME TAX RETURN; A COPY OF GIFT DEED; A COPY OF AFFIDAVIT BY THE DONOR DULY ATTESTED BY THE NOTARY; AND A COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE (WHEREIN THE GIFTED AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED AND ULTIMATELY CREDITED TO HER ACCOUNT). THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE DONOR INASMUCH AS RATION CARD AND PAN CAN ALSO BE FRAUDULENTLY OBTA INED. AS REGARDS THE OTHER TWO GIFTS RECEIVED FROM NON - RESIDENT DONORS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DIRECTLY OBTAINED COPY OF THEIR BANK NRE ACCOUNT S FROM THE CITI BANK. ON PERUSAL OF SUCH BANK STATEMENTS, IT WAS NOTICED THAT SH. MANMEET PAL SINGH ALLEGEDLY GIFTED A SUM OF RS. 8 LACS TO THE ASSESSEE ON 29.08.2002 AFTER GETTING A DEPOSIT OF RS. 16 , 5 1 ,192/ - IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT ON 28.08.2002. SIMILARLY, SH. HARMINDER SINGH S BANK ACCOUNT SHOWED INCREASE IN BALANCE BY RS. 17,07,300/ - BEFORE M AKING GIFT OF RS. 7 LACS TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE ON 24.01.2006 AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER GIFTED ANY AMOUNT TO THESE THREE DONORS AND FURTHER THE ASSESSEE NEVER VISITED NRI DONORS AT SINGAPORE . IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY BLOOD RELATION BETWEEN THE DONORS AND THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 15 LA CS UNDER SECTION 4 ITA NO. 2280/DEL /2007 AY : 2003 - 0 4 68 OF THE ACT . THE LEARNED CIT(A), ON APPRECIATION OF THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD, ORDER ED FOR THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE FIRST GIFT OF RS. 2 LACS FROM SH. PARVEEN KUMAR. IN THE COURSE OF HER STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS STATED THA T SH. PARVEEN KUMAR IS A CLOSE FRIEND OF HER HUSBAND WHO GIFTED THIS AMOUNT ON THE OCCASION OF HER MARRIAGE ANNIVERSARY. AS REGARDS THE INSPECTOR S REPORT THAT SH. PARVEEN KUMAR WAS NOT TRACEABLE AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED NOT ONLY THE COPY OF RATION CARD BUT ALSO OF THE PAN CARD AND OTHER EVIDENCE DIVULGING THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF SH. PARVEEN KUMAR WHICH WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THERE CANNOT BE ANY REASON TO ACCEPT THE VIEW POINT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT PAN AND RATION CARD CAN ALSO BE FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED. WHEN THE INSPECTOR ADVERSELY REPORTED ABOUT THE NON - AVAILABILITY OF SH. PARVEEN KUMAR ON THE G IVEN ADDRESS, IT WAS THEREAFTER THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A COPY OF RATION CARD AND PAN CARD EVIDENCING THE ADDRESS OF SH. PARVEEN KUMAR IN SUPPORT OF THE CORRECTNESS OF ADDRESS ALREADY GIVEN . WITHOUT MAKING ANY FURTHER INVESTIGATION AS TO THE VERACITY OF THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THESE DOCUMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE ASSESSEE S CONTENTI ON, WHICH COURSE OF ACTION IS UNTENABLE AS PER LAW. IT IS FURTHER EVIDENT THAT T HE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN AND WEALTH TAX RETURN OF THIS PERSON ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT FROM THE DONOR , WHICH HA VE NOT BEEN REFUTED BY THE 5 ITA NO. 2280/DEL /2007 AY : 2003 - 0 4 ASSESSING OFFI CER. IF T HE ASSE SSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT DESPITE THIS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE PROVING PRIMA FACIE THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT , THEN HE SHOULD HAVE GOT THE INQUIRY CONDUCTED FROM THE INCOME TAX FILE OF SH. PARVEEN KUMA R FOR WHICH ALL THE RELEVANT PARTICULARS WERE AVAILABLE WITH HIM. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, LEARNED CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEE S CONTENTION ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SH. PARVEEN KUMAR. 8. AS REGARDS T HE GIFT S RECEIVED FROM NRI DONORS, NAMELY, SH. MANMEET PAL SINGH AND SH. HARMINDER SINGH, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE CATEGORICALLY STATED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF HER STATEMENT THAT BOTH THESE PERSONS ARE REAL BROTHERS AND THEIR FAT HER SH. AJIT SINGH IS VERY CLOSE FRIEND OF HER FATHER - IN - LAW , SH. GURUCHARAN SINGH. BOTH THESE PERSONS WE RE STATED TO BE FAMILY FRIENDS. NOT ONLY THAT, THE ASSESSEE ALSO G A VE PERSONAL PARTICULARS OF THESE DONORS BY EXPLAINING THE NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED OUT BY THEM AND ALSO THE NAMES OF THEIR CHILDREN. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE GIFTS WERE MADE BY THESE TWO PERSONS ON THE OCCASION OF BIRTHDAY OF HER DAUGHTERS. IT IS MANIFEST FROM THE INQUIRY DIRECTLY CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM CITI BANK THAT HUGE AMOUNTS WERE DEPOSITED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE BANK ACCOUNTS BEFORE ISSUING GIFT CHEQUES FOR A MUCH LESSER AMOUNT. CITI BANK FURTHER CONFIRMED THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THESE TWO N ON - RESIDENTS WITH ITS BRANCH. THESE TWO PERSONS WERE RESIDING IN SINGAPORE FOR LAST MORE THAN 25 6 ITA NO. 2280/DEL /2007 AY : 2003 - 0 4 YEARS. A COPY OF THE BANK NRI ACCOUNT OF SH. HARMINDER SINGH FOR SIX MONTHS PERIOD FROM 01.04.2002 TO 30.09.2002 DI SCLOSED TOTAL DEPOSITS CREDITED TO HIS ACCOU NT AT RS. 51.61 LAC, OUT OF WHICH A SUM OF RS. 7 LACS WAS GIFTED TO THE ASSESSEE . DURING THE SAME SIX MONTH S PERIOD , THERE WERE CREDITS IN THE BANK NRI ACCOUNT OF SH. MANMEET PAL SINGH TO THE TUNE OF RS. 31.60 LAC, OUT OF WHICH A SUM OF RS. 8 LACS WAS G IFTED TO THE ASSESSEE. WHEN WE CONSIDER THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OBTAINING IN RESPECT OF THESE TWO DONORS, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE DISCHARGED HER BURDEN IN NOT ONLY PROVING THE IDENTITY OF THE DONORS , BUT ALSO THE IR CAPACITY AND GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT TRANSACTIONS. 9. WE, THEREFORE, APPROVE THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 17 LACS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 10 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THE DECISION IS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 8 T H MARCH , 2015. S D / - S D / - (C.M. GARG) (R.S. SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 8 T H MARCH, 2015. RK/ - COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI