Naresh Kumar HUF, Ambala City V. ACIT, Patiala

ITA 282/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 28221514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift; Source of fund; Question of law
• Section: 68; 56; 143(3); 142(1); 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS.SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 282/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 SHRI NARESH KUMAR, HUF, V ACIT, #927/7, URBAN ESTATE, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SECTOR 7, PATIALA. AMBALA CITY. PAN: AADHN-5030Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.K.MUKHI RESPONDENT : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA DATE OF HEARING : 29.11.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.12.2012 ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH, AM THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTE D AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.01.2011 PASSED BY THE LD . CIT(A) U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 (IN SHORT 'TH E ACT'). 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) PANCHKU LA IS ILLEGAL, ERRONEOUS, PERVERSE AND THUS UNCALLED FOR. 2. (A)THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONC URRING WITH THE FINDINGS OF LD. A.O. AND THEREBY CONFIRMING THE ACT ION U/S 153A WHICH IS BAD IN LAW THERE BEING NO SEARCH WARRANTS IN THE CA SE OF THE APPELLANT. (B)THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT ACTION U/S 153A WH ICH IS BAD IN LAW THERE BEING NO SEARCH WARRANTS IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLA NT ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS AND SO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEING ILLEG AL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. 2 3. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONCURR ING WITH THE LD. A.O. AND THEREBY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OR A GENUINE AND A VALID GIFT GIVEN BY A CLOSE RELATIVE IN TOTO WITHOU T APPRECIATING THE FACTS, REPLIES, CONTENTIONS AND EVIDENCES FILED BY THE APP ELLANT WHICH NEEDS DUE CONSIDERATION BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. 4. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF A PPEAL THE APPELLANT DISPUTES THE QUANTUM OF ADDITION I.E. RS3,50,000/- AS CONFIRMED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DISPOSAL F THE P RESENT APPEAL. 3. IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS B EFORE THE BENCH, LD. 'AR' CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 56 OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRE SENT CASE OF GIFT TRANSACTION. HE REFERRED TO PAGE 10 OF THE CI T(APPEALS)S ORDER, WHEREIN THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS DISCUSSED THE S UBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, ON THE ISSUE OF TRANSACTION OF GIFT. LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS DISCUSSED AND ANALYZED THE SUBMISS ION FILED BY THE APPELLANT, IN THIS PARA AT PAGE 10, AS REFER RED TO BY THE LD. 'AR'. LD. 'AR' REFERRED TO PAGE 12 & 15 OF THE PAPER BOOK. PAGE 12 IS A COMMUNICATION IN BANGLA LANGUAGE, WHE REBY CERTAIN FIGURES FOR THE YEAR 2001-02 HAVE BEEN SHOW N. PAGE 14 IS COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF SHRI KAMAL PRAKASH SING LA. PAGE 15 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS BALANCE-SHEET WHEREBY, IN T HE CAPITAL ACCOUNT, AN ENTRY HAS BEEN SHOWN AS GIFT TO NARES H, HUF, FOR RS.3.50 LACS. IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT APPELLATE P ROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BENCH, SPECIFIC QUERY WAS RAISED TO THE LD. 'AR', AS TO WHY THE EVIDENCE FROM THE INCOME TAX RECORD OF T HE ASSESSEE SHOWING SUCH GIFT TRANSACTION HAS NOT BEEN FILED. LD. 'AR' FAILED TO SHOW SUCH DOCUMENTS FROM THE RETURN OF IN COME, FILED WITH DEPARTMENT, FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD. LD. 'AR' PLACED RELIANCE, ON THE DECISION, IN THE CASE OF CIT V MS. MAYAWATI 3 (2011) 59 DTR 177 (DEL) AND DECISION OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT.AMITA DEVI SANGANERIA V ASSTT.CI T (GAU) 53 DTR 214 (GAU) (TM) (TRIB). IT WAS STATED BY LD. 'A R' THAT NO DOCUMENTS IN THE FORM OF GIFT DEED AND FORMAL LETTE R OF CONFIRMATION FROM THE DONOR, ON THE DATE OF TRANSAC TION OF GIFT, WERE OBTAINED. IT WAS, FURTHER, STATED BY LD. 'AR' , ON BEING QUESTIONED BY THE BENCH, THAT AGE OF THE DONOR WAS APPROXIMATELY 31 YEARS, ON THE DATE OF MAKING SAID GIFT. IT WAS FURTHER STATED BY THE LD. 'AR', THAT THE SAID GIFT WAS MADE ON THE OCCASION OF SMALL FUNCTION, FOR CELEBRATION OF HOUSE BUILDING ANNIVERSARY. 4. LD. 'DR', ON THE OTHER HAND, CATEGORICALLY AND VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT ASSESSEE APPELLANT FAILED, TO PROVE EVEN IDENTITY OF THE DONOR AND NO EVIDENCES, WHAT-SO-EVER, WERE O BTAINED FROM THE DONOR, ON THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE SAID GIFT AND FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT. IT WAS, FURTHER, POINTED OUT BY THE LD. 'AR' THAT CASH WAS DEPOSITED AND THEN THE PURPORTED GIFT WAS MADE. LD. 'DR' PLACED RELIANCE, ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT V P.MOHANKALA (2007) 291 ITR 278 (S.C), TO STATE THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE FALL WITHIN THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT, AS THE E XPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REASONABLE AND PLAUSIB LE. LD. 'DR', FURTHER, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF TIRATH RAM GUPTA V CIT ( 2008) 304 ITR 145 (P&H), TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS OF GIFTS WERE NOT GENUINE. LD. 'DR', FURTHER, REFERRED TO P AGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IN QUESTION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF R EFERRING TO 4 THE FINDINGS OF THE AO, SHOWING THAT EVEN THE IDENT ITY OF THE DONOR WAS NOT PROVED, BY THE APPELLANT. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD THE PARTIES AND CONSIDER ED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, FACTS OF THE CASE, RELEVANT RECO RDS, INCLUDING PAPER BOOK AND CASE LAWS, RELIED UPON BY THE CONTEN DING PARTIES. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE, AS CULLED OU T FROM THE RELEVANT RECORDS ARE THAT THE AO SOUGHT EXPLANATION , FROM THE APPELLANT, AS TO THE IDENTITY, CREDIT WORTHINESS AN D GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION OF GIFT, RECEIVED BY HIM , FROM SHRI HARI KISHAN, FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.3.50 LACS. THE RE PLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, ON 02.07.2008, AS RECORDED, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, DATED 19/21.11.2008, PASSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 02-03, IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER, WITH A VIEW TO APPRECIATING T HE SAME, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE : I HAVE ACCEPTED A GIFT OF RS.3.50 LACS FROM SHRI H ARI KRISHAN, BY CHEQUE NO.033026, DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERA TION AND THE PROOF OF GIFT IS ATTACHED HEREWITH. SHRI HARI KRISH AN DIED, ON 28.07.2007. AN AFFIDAVIT OF GIFT FROM HIS WIFE IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. 5(I) THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT FILED ANOTHER REPLY WHICH IS FACTUALLY CONTRARY TO THE CONTENTION MADE IN THE AB OVE CITED REPLY, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN THE MATTER. THIS REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER, WITH A VIEW T O EXAMINE THE FACTUALLY DIFFERENT VERSION OF THE APPLICANT, I N THE MATTER : THE GIFT IS MADE BY SHRI KAMAL PARKASH SINGLA, INSTEAD OF SHRI HARI KRISHAN GUPTA. SHRI KAMAL PARKASH SINGLA IS SON OF SHRI HARI KISHAN GUPTA. A GIFT DEED, BANK STATEMENT AND CAPITAL 5 ACCOUNT OF SHRI KAMAL PARKASH SINGLA FROM WHERE GIF T IS MADE, IS ATTACHED HEREWITH. 6. THE AO, FURTHER, RAISED A QUERY, AS TO THE CHANG E OF VERSION, IN REGARD TO THE DONOR OF THE SO CALLED GI FT, BY THE ASSESSEE VIS--VIS THE REPLY FILED, ON 02.07.2008 AND 16.09.2008. THE AO, FURTHER, SOUGHT EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE DONOR, IN VI EW OF SUCH CONTRADICTORY VERSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT, AS TO THE DONOR. THE ASSESSEE, FURTHER, SUBMITTED REPLY, ON 14.11.20 08, STATING THAT THE GIFT WAS RECEIVED, ON 01.08.2001, FROM THE JOINT BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI HARI KISHAN AND SHRI KAMAL PARKASH SINGLA. THE REPLY, IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE DATED 19.06.2008, WAS GIVEN, ON 02.07.2008, AFTER A GAP OF 7 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF GIFT AND DATE OF REPLY WHICH IS SUBSTANTIAL TIME GAP AND ITS HUMAN WEAKNESS THAT HE CANNOT PROMPT THE FINDINGS EXACTLY AFTER SUCH A LONG TIME PERIOD. 6(I) THE OBSERVATIONS, AS RECORDED BY THE AO, IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER, ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER , BEING RELEVANT AND MATERIAL IN NATURE, IN THE MATTER: VIDE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 6-11-2008, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED THAT IT STATED ABOUT GIFT IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE DATED 1 9-6-2008 THAT THE GIFT WAS RECEIVED ON FROM SH. HARI KRISHAN S/O SH. BADRI PARSAD R/O JAWA HAR NAGAR, AMBALA, WHO DIED ON 28-7-2007, THEREFORE THE GIFT DEED BEING FILED ON B EHALF OF SMT. LAJRANI WHO IS WIFE OF SH. HARI KRISHAN GUPTA. LATER ON, IT CHANGED THE ST AND AND FILED REPLY ON 16-9-2008 STATING THAT THE GIFT WAS RECEIVED FROM SH. KAMAL P ARKASH SINGLA AND FILED GIFT DEED ON BEHALF OF HIM. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO SHOW CAUSED AS TO WHY THE GIFT OF RS. 3.5 LACS, MAY NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME AS IT FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE DONOR AND THE ASSESSEE ITSELF WAS N OT SURE, WHETHER THE GIFT OF SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF RS. 3.5 LACS WAS RECEIVED FROM HARI KRISH AN OR SH. KAMAL PARKASH SINGLA. 6 6(II) THE REASONS OF STATING ORIGINALLY THAT THE DO NOR WAS SHRI HARI KISHAN, ARE AS UNDER : 1. THE GIFT WAS MADE FROM THE JOINT ACCOUNT OF KAMAL P ARKASH SINGLA AND HARI KARISHAN GUPTA. KAMAL PARKASH IS THE SON O F SH. HARI KARISHAN. 2. AS GIFT WAS MADE AFTER CONSULTATION WITH A!L FAMIL Y MEMBERS AND THE GIFT DEED WAS MADE BY W/O SH. HARI KARISHAN AS SHE OBSER VED BY HER MEMORY THAT GIFT IS MADE BY HER HUSBAND AND ONLY UNDER THIS IMP RESSION SHE GAVE AN AFFIDAVIT. MOREOVER, THE GIFT WAS FROM THE JOINT BANK ACCOUNT OF SH. FLARI KARISHAN AND SH. KAMAL PARKASH. 3. MR. KAMAL PARKASH WAS SERVING AT FAR AWAY PLACE S SUCH AS BANGLADESH AND EASTERN PART OF INDIA. HE COULD NOT BE CONTA CTED ON THIS MATTER. HOWEVER, WHEN AN EXPLANATION WAS SOUGHT BY DEPARTME NT AND MR. KAMAL PARKASH TO TAKE UP THE MATTER IN HIS HANDS, HE IMME DIATELY RETORT THAT GIFT HAS BEEN MADE BY HIM ONLY AND /NOT BY HIS FATHER. 6(III) THE SUBMISSION, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NO T FOUND PLAUSIBLE AND ACCEPTABLE BY THE AO, ON THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND IS REJECTED ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- A. VIDE REPLY DATED 2-7-08, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT I T RECEIVED GIFT FROM SH. HARI KARISHAN GUPTA BUT VIDE REPLY DATED 3-9-20 08, IT STATED THAT THE GIFT WAS RECEIVED FROM SH. KAMAL PARKASH SINGLA. THE ASS ESSEE WAS NOT ITSELF SURE THAT FROM WHOM-IT RECEIVED THE GIFT OF SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF RS. 3.5 LACS, THEREFORE, FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF DONOR AN D GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT. B. STATEMENT ON OATH OF SH. KAMAL PARKASH SINGLA WA S RECORDED ON 8-10- 2008, AND HE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CAS H DEPOSITS IN THE BANK- ACCOUNT NO. 1788 OF BANK OF INDIA, NEW GRAIN MARKET , AMBALA CITY, RS. 2,50,000/-,ON 1-8-0L AND RS.2,75,000/-, ON 30-7-200 1, BEFORE SO, CALLED GIFT. HE EXPLAINED THAT THE DEPOSITS WERE MADE IN THE BANK A CCOUNT OUT OF PERSONAL SAVINGS AND INVESTMENTS BY HIM AND BY HIS FAMILY ME MBERS. BUT LATER ON, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN THE BA NK ACCOUNT OF SH. KAMAL PARKASH SINGLA FROM THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN FROM THE B ANK ON THE FOLLOWING DATES:- DATE AMOUNT 1. 17.5.2001 CASH 300000.00 2. 18.6.2001 CASH 100000.00 3. 10.7.2001 NSC MATURE 50000.00 4. 11.7.2001 CASH 50000.00 500000.00 IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE FACTS, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ITSELF SURE THAT THE GIFT WAS MADE BY SH. KAMAL PARKASH, SINGLA. OUT OF HIS SAVINGS/INVESTMENT OR FROM THE CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM THE BANK WHICH SHOWN TO BE RE DEPOSITED AND IT IS ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT WHEN HE HAD WITHDRAWN RS. 3 LACS 7 ON 17-5-2001, THEN WHY HE HAD WITHDRAWN RS. 1 LAC O N 18-6-2001 INSPITE OF CASH. THESE TRANSACTIONS PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D NO CASH ON 18-6-2001, THEREFORE, HE HAD WITHDRAWN MONEY FROM THE BANK AND THERE WAS ALSO BIG GAP AMONG THE WITHDRAWALS AND RE DEPOSITS OF MONEY IN THE BANK, WHICH WAS NOT REASONABLE. THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE, ALSO FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT. C. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS OF SH. KAMAL PARKASH SINGLA WHICH DEPICTS THAT HE HAD RAISED LOAN FROM PNB RS. 4,69,915/- TO PURCHASE THE HOUSE, WHICH PROVE THAT SH. KAMAL PARKASH SINGL A WAS NOT IN POSITION TO MAKE GIFT OF SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF RS.3.5 LACS TO T HE ASSESSEE AS SH. KAMAL PARKASH SINGLA WAS ALREADY INDEBTED THEREFORE, TH E ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF SH. KAMAL PARKASH SI NGLA. D. STATEMENT ON OATH OF SH. KAMAL PARKASH SI NGLA WAS RECORDED ON 8-10-2008 AND HE WAS ASKED TO STATE THE OCCASION OF GIFT. HE STATED THAT THE GIFT WAS GIVEN ON THE OCCASION OF A SMALL FUNCTION FOR CELEBRATION OF HOUSE BUILDING ANNIVERSARY . THE ABOVE SAID STATEMENT OF SH. KAMAL PARKASH SIN GLA PROVE THAT THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR MAKING GIFT AND HOUS E BUILDING ANNIVERSARY IS NO OCCASION AND NO HOUSE IS-OWNED BY NARESH KURNAR (HUF). E. A GIFT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS SUCH TO BE GENUINE, MERELY BECAUSE THE AMOUNT HAS COME BY WAY OF CHEQUES OR DRAFT THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL, UNLESS TH E IDENTITY OF THE DONOR, CREDIT WORTHINESS, RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DONEE AND THE OCCASION ARE PROVED.. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE DONOR, GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF TH E DONOR AS MENTIONED ABOVE. THE SAID GIFT OF RS.3,50,000/- IS TREATED AS UNEXPL AINED AND IS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. LD. CIT(APPEALS), UPHELD FINDING OF THE AO AND T HE FINDINGS OF CIT(APPEALS) ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE SAME : 5.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR. A SSESSEE DURING THE YEAR HAS RECEIVED A GIFT OF RS, 3,50,000/- WHICH WAS FIRST CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM SH. HARI KRISHAN AND LATERON FRO M SH. KAMAL PARKASH SINGLA INSTEAD OF SH. HARI KRISHAN GUPTA. IT WAS EXPLAINE D THAT SH. KAMAL PARKASH SINGLA IS THE SON OF SH. HARI KRI SHAN GUPTA. A GIFT DEED, BANK STATEMENTS AND CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF SH. KAMAL PA RKASH SINGLA FROM WHERE THE GIFT WAS MADE WAS ALSO PROVIDED TO THE AO . WHEN ASKED ABOUT CHANGE IN NAME OF THE DONOR, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEF ORE THE AO THAT GIFT WAS RECEIVED ON 1-8-2001 WHICH IS DULY DEBITED IN T HE BANK STATEMENT OF SH. HARI KRISHAN AND SH.KAMAL PARKASH SINGLA (JOINT BANK ACCOUNT) AND THE REPLY WAS GIVEN ON 14-7-2008 AFTER THE GAP OF S EVEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF GIFT. THEREFORE, THERE WAS MISTAKE IN MENTI ONING THE NAME OF THE DONOR. AO HOWEVER V;WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE REPL Y OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FOLLOWING REASONS AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 3,50,000 /-: 'THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND IS REJECTED ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 8 A. VIDE REPLY DATED 2-7-08, THE ASSESSEE STATED THA T IT RECEIVED GIFT FROM SH. HARI KARISHAN BUT VIDE REPLY DATED 3-9- 2008, IT ST ATED THAT THE GIFT WAS RECEIVED FROM SH. KAMAL PARKASH SINGLA. THE ASSESSE E WAS NOT ITSELF SURE, THAT FROM WHOM IT RECEIVED THE GIFT OF SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF RS. 3.5 LACS, THEREFORE, FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF DONOR AN D GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT. B. STATEMENT ON OATH OF SH. KAMAL PARKASH SINGLA. W AS RECORDED ON 8-10-2008, AND HE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPO SITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT NO. 1788 OF BANK OF INDIA, NEW GRAIN MARKET, AMBALA CITY, RS. 2,50.000/- ON 1-8-O1 AND RS. 2,75,000/- ON 30-7-2001 BEFORE SO CALLED GIFT. HE EXPLAINED THAT THE DEPOSITS WERE MADE IN THE BANK A CCOUNT OUT OF PERSONAL SAVINGS AND INVESTMENTS BY HIM AND BY HIS FAMILY ME MBERS. BUT LATER ON, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN THE BA NK ACCOUNT OF SH. KAMAL PARKASH SINGLA FROM THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN FROM THE B ANK ON THE FOLLOWING DATES: DATE AMOUNT 1. 17/05/2001 CASH 300000.00 2. 18/06/2001 CASH 100000.00 IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE FACTS, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ITSELF SURE THAT THE GIFT WAS MADE BY SH. KAMAL PARKASH SINGLA, OUT OF HIS SAVINGS/INVESTMENT OR FROM THE CASH WITHDRAWALS MAD E FROM THE BANK WHICH SHOWN TO BE RE DEPOSITED, AND IT IS ALSO WORTH NOTI NG THAT WHEN HE HAD WITHDRAWN RS. 3 LACS ON 17-5-2001, THEN WHY HE HAD WITHDRAWN RS. I LAC ON 18-6-2001 INSPITE OF CASH. THESE TRANSACTIONS PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO CASH ON 18-6-2001, THEREFORE, HE HAD WITHDRAWN MONE Y FROM THE BANK AND THERE WAS ALSO BIG GAP AMONG THE WITHDRAWALS AND RE DEPOSITS OF MONEY IN THE BANK, WHICH WAS NOT REASONABLE. THE ASSESSEE THEREF ORE, ALSO FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT. C. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS OF SH. KAMAL PARKASH SINGLA WHICH DEPICTS THAT HE HAD RAIS ED LOAN FROM PNB RS. 4,69,915/- TO PURCHASE THE HOUSE, WHICH PROVE THAT SH. KAMAL PARKASH SINGIA WAS NOT IN POSITION TO MAKE GIFT OF SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT 3.5 LAC S TO THE ASSESSEE AS SH. KAMAL PARKASH SINGIA WA S ALREADY INDEBTED. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO PR OVE THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF SH. KAMAL PARKASH SINGLA. D. STATEMENT ON OATH OF SH. KAMAL PARKASH SINGIA WA S RECORDED ON 8-10-2008 AND HE WAS ASKED TO STATE THE OCCASION OF GIFT. HE STATED THAT THE GIFT WAS GIVEN ON THE OCCASION OF A SMALL FUNCTION FOR CELEBRATION OF HOUSE BUILDING ANNIVERSARY. THE ABOVE SAID STATEMENT OF S H. KAMAL PARKASH SINGIA PROVE THAT THERE WAS NO OCCASI ON FOR MAKING GIFT AND HOUSE BUILDING ANNIVERSARY IS NO OC CASION AND NO HOUSE IS OWNED BY NARESH KUMAR (HUF). 3. 10/07/2001 N.S.C MATURE 50000.00 4. 11/07/2001 CASH 50000.00 500000.00 9 E. A GIFT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS SUCH TO BE GENUINE MERELY BECAUSE THE AMOUNT HAS COME BY WAY OF CHEQUES OR DRAFT THROUGH BANKING CHARINEL, UNLESS THE IDENTITY OF THE DONOR, CREDIT WORTHINESS , RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DONEE AND THE OCCASION ARE PROVED. IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE AR HAS ALMOST REPEATED THE SAME ARGUMENTS AS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO. IT HAS ALSO B EEN SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT SH. KAMAL PARKASH SLNGLA IS SERVING NEAR KANPU R AND GIFT WAS MADE AFTER CONSULTATION WITH ALL FAMILY MEMBERS IN ABSEN CE OF SH. KAMAL PARKASH SINGLA. IT WAS BECAUSE OF DEATH OF SH. HARI KRISHAN THAT THE GIFT DEED WAS MADE BY SMT. LAJ RANI W/O SH. HARI KRISHAN AS SHE R ECALLED BY HER MEMORY THAT GIFT WAS MADE BY HER HUSBAND AND UNDER THIS IM PRESSION SHE GAVE AN AFFIDAVIT STATING THAT HER HUSBAND HAD MADE THE GIF T. MOREOVER, THE GIFT WAS MADE FROM THE JOINT BANK ACCOUNT OF SH. HARI KRISHA N AND SH. KAMAL PARKASH SINGLA. MR. KAMAL PARKASH WAS SERVING AT FA R AWAY PLACES SUCH AS BANGALADESH AND EASTERN PART OF INDIA AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE CONTACTED ON THIS MATTER. HOWEVER, WHEN AN EXPLANATION WAS SO UGHT MR. KAMAL PARKASH WAS CONTACTED AND HE IMMEDIATELY RESTATED THAT GIFT HAD BEEN MADE BY HIM ONLY AND NOT BY HIS FATHER. FURTHER SH.KAMAL PARKAS H SINGLA WAS SUMMONED AND HE ATTENDED THE OFFICE FOR EVIDENCE. HE WAS NOT SHOWN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND WAS ASKED TO GIVE | THE STATEMENT WITHOUT REFER RING TO ANY DOCUMENT. HOWEVER, LATERON HE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF DEP OSITS. SH. KAMAL PRAKASH SINGLA IS HIGHLY PAID OFFICER OF IRCON INTE RNATIONAL LTD AND HAS EVEN SERVED IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES ON BEHALF OF GOVT OF IN DIA. FROM THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, IT IS SEEN THAT AR HAS CLAIMED THAT THE GIFT WAS MADE BY SH. KAMAL PARKASH SINGLA WHO IS A HIGHLY PAID OFFICER A ND ALSO EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR CHANGE IN THE NAME OF THE DONOR OF THE GIFT. HOWEVER, AS DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SH. KAMAL PARKASH WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT NO. 1788 WITH BANK OF INDIA, NEW GREEN MARKET, AMBALA CITY. RS. 2,50,000/- ON 1-8-2001 AND RS. 2,75,000/- ON 30-7- 2001 BEFORE SO CALLED GIFTS. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE DEPOSITS WERE MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OUT OF PERSONAL SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT S MADE BY HIM AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. HOWEVER, LATERON HE EXPLAINED THE S OURCE OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT FROM THE AMOUNTS WITHDRAWN FROM THE BA NK ON FOUR DIFFERENT DATES AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. MOREOVE R, SH. KAMAL PARKASH HIMSELF HAS RAISED LOAN OF RS. 4,69,915/- FROM PNB TO PURCHASE THE HOUSE. NO PROPER OCCASION OF THE GIFT WAS EXPLAINED. FROM THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION AND ALSO FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT OR DER IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROPERLY EXPLAIN THE NAME OF THE EXACT DONOR AND THE SOURCE OF THE GIFT AND THEREFORE, ADDITION OF RS. 3 ,50,000/-- IS UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 8. THE AO, ON APPRECIATION OF THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS/REPLIES BY THE APPELLANT IN THE MAT TER, RECORDED A CLEAR FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAIL ED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE DONOR AND GENUINENESS OF THE GI FT. THE BASIS OF SUCH FINDINGS OF THE AO, IS ROOTED IN THE CONTRADICTORY REPLY, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT, ORIGINALLY STATING THAT 10 GIFT WAS RECEIVED FROM SHRI HARI KRISHAN GUPTA, VIDE REPLY DATED 02.07.2008 AND TURNED A VOLTE FACE IN REPLY D ATED 03.09.2008 AND ATTRIBUTED THE SAID GIFT AS PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM SHRI KAMAL PARKASH SINGLA, SON O F THE ORIGINAL DONOR. THIS SHIFTING AND CONTRADICTORY VE RSION OF THE ASSESSEE, AS TO THE DONOR OF THE ALLEGED GIFT, RUNS CONTRARY TO THE NATURAL PROBABILITY OF HUMAN CONDUCT, IN THE MA TTER. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AWARE OF THE ACTUAL DONOR. SIMILARL Y, SHRI KAMAL PRKASH SINGLA, IN HIS STATEMENT DATED 08.10.2 008 STATED THAT CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT NO.1788, IN BANK OF INDIA, NEW GRAIN MARKET, AMBALA CITY OF RS.2,50,000 /-, ON 01.08.2001, AND RS.2,75,000/-, ON 30.07.2001, BEFOR E DEPOSITS OF SO CALLED GIFTS WERE MADE, IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT, OUT OF PERSONAL SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT BY HIM AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. HOWEVER, AT A LATER STAGE, ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS, IN THE BANK ACCOU NT OF SHRI KAMAL PARKASH SINGLA, FROM THE AMOUNTS WITHDRAWN FR OM THE BANK, ON THE DATES MENTIONED, IN FINDINGS OF THE AO . THE AO, THUS, CONCLUDED THAT GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION S REMAINS UNPROVED. IT IS, FURTHER, RECORDED BY THE AO THAT SHRI KAMAL PARKASH GUPTA, THE SO CALLED DONOR, RAISED LOAN FRO M PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, AT RS.4,69,915/-, TO PURCHASE THE HO USE, INDICATING THAT SHRI KAMAL PRKASH GUPTA WAS NOT IN A FINANCIAL POSITION, TO MAKE SUBSTANTIAL GIFT OF RS. 3.05 LACS. UNDER SUCH A FACT-SITUATION OF THE CASE, RAISING A LOAN FOR PURCHASE OF HOUSE AND MAKING GIFT IS NOT, IN CONSON ANCE WITH THE SURROUNDING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE PROBABILITY OF HUMAN CONDUCT. THE OCCASION OF SUCH GIFT WAS 11 STATED BY SHRI KAMAL PARKASH GUPTA, AS CELEBRATION OF HOUSE BUILDING ANNIVERSARY. THE AO, RECORDED IN HIS FIND ING THAT THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR MAKING SUCH GIFTS AND BUI LDING ANNIVERSARY IS NO OCCASION AND NO HOUSE IS OWNED BY SHRI NARESH KUMAR, HUF. THE AO, FURTHER, RECORDED THAT MOVEMENT OF THE AMOUNT OF GIFT, THROUGH BANKING CHA NNELS, DOES NOT PROVE GENUINENESS AND CREDIT-WORTHINESS OF SUCH A GIFT. AS SUCH, FINDINGS OF THE AO WERE UPHELD BY TH E CIT(APPEALS). 9. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE COVERED BY THE DECISIO N OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, IN TIRATH RAM GUPTA V CI T (2008) 304 ITR 145 (P&H), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT A GIFT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS GENUINE MERELY BECAUSE THE AMOUNT HA S COME BY WAY OF CHEQUE OR DRAFT THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL, UNLESS THE IDENTITY OF THE DONOR, HIS CREDIT WORTHINESS, RELAT ION WITH THE DONOR AND THE OCCASIONS ARE PROVED. UNLESS THE REC IPIENT HAS PROVED THE GENUINENESS THEREOF, THE GIFTS CAN VERY WELL BE TREATED TO BE ACCOMMODATION ENTRY OF THE ASSESSEE'S OWN MONEY, WHICH IS NOT DISCLOSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF TA XATION. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS FOLLOWED ITS DECISION IN ANOTHER CASE IN SUBHASH CHANDER SEKHARI V DY.CIT (2 007) 290 ITR 300 (P&H), ON THE SUBJECT IN QUESTION. 9(I) THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF SUBHASH CHANDER SEKHARI V DY.CIT (SUPRA), HAS UNDERLINED THE EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE OCCASION IN GIFT TRANS ACTIONS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE HAS BEEN NO OCCASION OR NO HAPPY 12 OCCASION, ON WHICH SUCH GIFT WAS MADE, TO THE ASSES SEE. THE HEAD-NOTES OF THE DECISION ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : CASH CREDITS IN SAVINGS BANK-ADDITIONS-PLEA THAT GI FTS RECEIVED ON OCCASION OF MARRIAGE IN FAMILY OR OTHER HAPPY OCCAS IONS FROM RELATIVES AND CLOSE FAMILY FRIENDS RESIDING ABROAD- NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS ANY MARRIAGE OR ANY FUNCTION IN FAMILY DURING RELEVANT PERIOD WHEN GIFTS WERE STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY DEPOSITS-TRIBUNAL CONFIRMING AD DITIONS-NO PERVERSE FINDING-INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 SS.68, 260A. 9(II) THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT, BY HIS CONDUCT AND SU BMISSIONS, IN RESPECT TO THE TRUE IDENTITY OF THE DONOR OF SUC H GIFT, HAS ESTABLISHED THAT HE IS NOT AWARE OF THE DONOR OF TH E SAID GIFT. THE ASSESSEE, IN A CASE OF GENUINE TRANSACTION OF G IFT DEED, CONFIRMATORY LETTER, FROM THE DONOR AND OTHER RELAT ED EVIDENCES, FROM INCOME-TAX RECORDS, TO PROVE THE CR EDIT WORTHINESS OF THE DONOR AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRAN SACTIONS, MUST OBTAIN, ON THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF SUCH GIFT. TIME LATCHES, IN PROCURING SUCH EVIDENCE, IS NOT A VALID EXCUSE, ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT. SIMILARLY, HARDSHIP FACE D IN RESPECT OF PROCURING SUCH EVIDENCES, IS ALSO A CREATION OF THE APPELLANT, AS IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE DONEE ASSESS EE, TO OBTAIN SUCH EVIDENCES, ON THE DATE OF SAID GIFT TRA NSACTION. THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO FILE RELEVANT EVIDENCES , FROM THE RELEVANT INCOME-TAX RECORDS, TO SUPPORT THE CREDIT- WORTHINESS OF THE DONOR. 9(III) THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF P.MOHANKALA (2007) 291 ITR 278 (S.C) HAS HELD, ON APPRECIATION OF THE BARE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT THAT ONUS LIES, ON THE ASSESSEE, TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDIT WORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. IT IS, FURTHER, H ELD BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT THAT THE EXPRESSION THE ASSESSEE 13 OFFERS NO EXPLANATION MEANS THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO PROPER, REASONABLE AND ACCEPTABLE EXPLANATION AS REGARDS THE SUMS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS MAINTA INED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE HON'BLE APEX COURT, FURTHER, HELD THAT, WHERE THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ABOU T THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE SUMS, FOUND CREDITED IN TH E BOOKS, IS NOT A SATISFACTORY, THERE IS PRIMA-FACIE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, VIZ, THE RECEIPT OF MONEY. TH E BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO REBUT THE SAME AND IF, HE FAILS TO REBUT IT, IT CAN BE HELD AGAINST THE ASSES SEE THAT IT WAS A RECEIPT OF INCOME NATURE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF SUBMISSIONS AND EVID ENCES, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT CAN BE REASONABLY CONCLUD ED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST ON H IM, IN THE TRANSACTION OF GIFT. 10. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, AFTER PLACING RELIAN CE ON ITS DECISION, IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL V CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 REITERATED THE PRINCIPLE OF PREPONDERANCE OF PR OBABILITY, SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES AND PROBABILITY OF HUMAN CONDUCT IN DECIDING SUCH CASES. IT IS, FURTHER, MENTIONED THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT V DURGA P RASAD MORE (1971) 82 ITR 540 (S.C) REITERATED THE EVIDENT IARY VALUE OF SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES AND PROBABILITY OF HUM AN CONDUCT, IN ADJUDICATING ISSUES, UNDER FISCAL STATU TE. HAVING REGARD TO SUCH A CLEAR DECLARATION OF LAW, BY THE A PEX COURT, WE FIND THAT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AR E COVERED BY THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT , PARTICULARLY APPLICABILITY OF THE SURROUNDING CIRCU MSTANCES 14 AND PROBABILITY OF HUMAN CONDUCT, IN THE MATTER OF SUCH GIFT TRANSACTION. 11. IT IS, MENTIONED HERE THAT FACT-SITUATION OF TH E PRESENT CASE ARE COVERED BY ANOTHER DECISION OF THE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT IN JASPAL SINGH V CIT 290ITR 306 (P&H), WHER EIN IT HAS BEEN HELD IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT MERE IDENTIFICATION OF DONO R AND SHOWING THE MOVEMENT OF GIFT AMOUNT THROUGH BAN KING CHANNEL IS NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE G IFT. THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DONOR H AD THE MEANS AND THE GIFT WAS GENUINE, FOR NATURAL LOVE AND AFFE CTION. REFERENCE IN THIS REGARD MAY BE MADE TO THE JUDGEME NT OF THIS COURT IN LALL CHAND KALRA V CIT (1981) 22 CTR 135, DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN SAJAN DASS & SONS V CIT (2003) 264 ITR 435. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS EVEN FAILED TO PROVE THE TRUE IDENTITY OF THE DONOR AND EQUALLY FA ILED TO PROVE THE CREDIT-WORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SAID G IFT TRANSACTION. 12. THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE, ON THE DECISION O F SMT.AMITA DEVI SANGANERIA V CIT (SUPRA), WHEREIN TH E ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED CONFIRMATION OF DONORS, TO D ISCLOSE THE IDENTITY OF THE DONOR, ON THE BASIS OF PAN, SOURCE OF FUNDS WERE ALSO ESTABLISHED BY WAY OF BANK STATEMENT, BAL ANCE SHEET AND TRANSACTION THROUGH GIFT DEED. IN SUCH FACT-SI TUATION, THE ADDITION WAS NOT SUSTAINED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, T HE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE DONOR AND H AS, FURTHER, FAILED TO FILE EVIDENCE, IN THE FORM OF PAN OF THE TRUE DONOR AND ANY EVIDENCE FROM THE INCOME TAX RETURNS OF THE DON OR, TO 15 PROVE HIS CASE OF GIFT. LD. 'AR', CATEGORICALLY AD MITTED THAT NO SUCH EVIDENCE FROM THE INCOME TAX RECORDS HAS BEEN FILED BY THE APPELLANT, AT ANY STAGE. IN SUCH A FACT-SITUAT ION, THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT APPLICA BLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 12(I) THE ASSESSEE, FURTHER, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF MS. MAYAWA TI (SUPRA). THE CONCLUSION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN T HE DECISION RELIED UPON BY LD. 'AR' IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : ALL THE DONORS WHO HAD MADE GIFTS TO THE ASSESSEE HAVING APPEARED BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT AND SUBMITTED AFFIDAVITS ON O ATH CONFIRMING THE GIFTS MADE BY THEM, CITING THEIR OLD RELATIONS WITH THE ASSESSEE AND PROVED THEIR CAPACITY TO MAKE GIFTS, SAID GIFTS COULD NOT BE TREATED AS NON-GENUINE SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR MAKING THE GIFTS OR THERE IS NO BLOOD RELATION BETW EEN THE DONORS AND THE DONEE OR THAT THE GIFTS WERE MADE BY DONORS BY TAKING LOANS; NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES FROM T HE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) DE LETING THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF SAID GIFTS. 13. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED AND CONSIDERED THE RA TIO LAID DOWN, BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT. IN THE CASE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, DONORS, WHO MADE THE GIFTS, A PPEARED BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT AND FILED AFFIDAVITS ON OATH, CONFIRMING THE GIFTS MADE BY THEM. THEY ALSO STATED OLD RELAT ION WITH THE ASSESSEE AND, FURTHER, PROVED THEIR CAPACITY TO MAK E GIFTS. THE DONEE, BEING A PUBLIC AND POLITICAL FIGURE, AND WAS WORKING IN THE WELFARE OF THE DOWN-TRODDEN, IN A MISSIONARY MA NNER AND ON ACCOUNT OF SOCIAL WORK, THE DONORS DECIDED TO PA RT AWAY WITH THEIR PROPERTIES BY GIVING THE SAME, AS GIFT T O HER. THEREFORE, THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE, RELIED U PON BY THE ASSESSEE, DO NOT HAVE EVEN SEMBLANCE OF RESEMBLANCE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN VIEW OF THIS, RELIAN CE PLACED BY 16 THE ASSESSEE IS MISPLACED, HAVING REGARD TO THE FAC T-SITUATION OF THE PRESENT CASE. 14. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE LEGAL AND FACTUAL DISCUSSI ONS AND HAVING REGARD TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX C OURT AND JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE D O NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) A ND, HENCE, THE SAME ARE UPHELD. CONSEQUENTLY, THE GROUNDS OF A PPEAL BEARING NO. 3 & 4 OF THE APPELLANT, ARE DISMISSED. 15. LD. 'AR' DID NOT PRESS GROUND NO 2 AND, HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 16. GROUND NOS. 1 & 5 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND THE SAME NEED NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. ACCORDINGLY, SAME AR E DISMISSED. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH DEC.,2012. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (MEHAR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER DATED: 6 TH DEC.,2012. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT ,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH