Sh. Ramesh Garg, Chandigarh V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 29/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6127 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-04-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J S NAGAR
• Keywords: Gift

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 29/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SHRI RAMESH GARG, VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 5(1), CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN NO. ABEPG3806F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRIKSHIT AGGARWAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.S.NAGAR DATE OF HEARING : 29/04/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.5.2014 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASS ESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2012 OF LD. CIT(A) CHANDIGARH REL EVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THROUGH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE H AS AGITATED AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,93,300/- CLA IMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS A GIFT FROM HIS SISTER. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED CANADIAN $ 5000 EQUIVALENT TO RS. 1,93,300/- IN INDIAN CURRE NCY FROM HIS NEPHEW (SON OF THE SISTER) MR. SUMIT GUPTA, RESIDENT OF CANADA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE NEPHEW DID NOT FALL IN THE DEFINITION OF RELATIVE AS PROVIDED U/S 56(2)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. HE TREATED THE SA ID RECEIPT AS INCOME OF THE 2 ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAID DI SALLOWANCE. THE ASSESSEE IS THUS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH TH E PARTIES. 5. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMI TTED THAT IN FACT THE SAID GIFT WAS MADE BY THE SISTER OF THE ASSESSEE. HER SON HAD TRANSFERRED THE MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE ASKING OF HIS MOTHER ( SISTER OF THE ASSESSEE). HE HAS VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THE SAID GIFT WAS NOT FROM THE NEPHEW BUT FROM THE SISTER OF THE ASSESSEE WHO FALL UNDER THE DEFIN ITION OF THE RELATIVE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 56(2)(VI) OF THE ACT. HE HAS A LSO RELIED ON A CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SISTER OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED AT PAGE 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK BEFORE US VIDE WHICH SHE HAD CONFIRMED T HAT THE GIFT WAS MADE BY HER AND SHE HAD DIRECTED HER SON TO SEND THE CHEQUE OF THE ABOVE AMOUNT TO HIS BROTHER. 6. THE LD. DR HAS RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE L D. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THERE IS NO DO UBT ABOUT THE IDENTITY AND FINANCIAL CAPACITY OF THE TRANSFEROR OF THE AMOUNT. IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE TRANSFER OF MONEY WAS FROM THE SON OF THE SISTER OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SISTER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A WRITTEN CONFIRMA TION THAT THE SAID MONEY WAS TRANSFERRED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON HER DIRE CTION BY HER SON TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IN THE DISPUTE IS AL SO A NOMINAL AMOUNT WHICH IS NOT UNUSUALLY HIGH. IT IS IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF RELATIONS THAT THE MOTHER ASKS HER SON TO DO CERTAIN ACTIVITIES RELATING TO F INANCIAL MATTERS ALSO DUE TO OLD AGE OR OTHER RELATED COMPULSIONS. SIMILARLY, IN OUR SOCIETY THE SON ALSO FEELS AN OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE MOTHER. THE AMOUNT OF GIFT BEING NOMINAL AND FULLY EXPLAINED AND ALSO IN VIEW OF THE CONFIRMATION 3 LETTER ISSUED BY THE SISTER OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TH E MONEY WAS IN FACT GIFTED BY HER AND THE SAME WAS TRANSFERRED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE BY HER SON ON HER DIRECTIONS, LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT THE GIFT WAS M ADE BY SISTER OF THE ASSESSEE WHO FALLS WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF RELATIVE AS PROV IDED U/S 56(2)(VI) OF THE ACT. 8. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE OBSERVATION, THE IMPUGNED O RDER OF THE CIT(A) IS HEREBY SET ASIDE AND THE DISALLOWANCE IN QUESTION IS ORDERED TO BE DELETED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.5.2014 SD/- SD/- (T.R. SOOD) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 13 TH MAY, 2014 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR