L. Syed Ibrahim Bahadusha, Bangalore V. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 406/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 40621114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 24-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K SRIHARI
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SINGLE MEMBER BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI D.MANMOHAN, VICE - PRESIDENT ITA NO. 406 / BANG/20 14 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 0 4 - 05 ) SHRI L.SYED IBRAHIM BAHADUSHA, NO.33, A.M.ROAD, BANGALORE - 2. APPELLANT PAN: AFSPB40 97D VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), BANGALORE. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI P.K.SRIHARI, ADDL.CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 24/08/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24 /08/2015 O R D E R PER D.MANMOHAH, VP: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) - I, BANGALORE, AND IT PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05. 2. A SUM OF RS.7 LAKHS, SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AS GIFT FROM SHRI JAMALUDDIN SHEIK FAREED , WAS TREATED AS UNEXPL AINED CASH CREDIT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM THE PARTY. IN FACT, NO GIFT DEED COPY WAS PRODUCED AND DETAILS OF MODE OF ITA NO . 406 /BANG/20 1 4 SHRI L.SYED IBRAHIM BAHADUSHA PAGE 2 OF 4 PAYMENT, ORIGINATION BANK AND OTHER BANK ACCOUNT DETAILS WE RE NOT FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO , U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT, ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE IMPUGNED SUM WAS RECEIVED AS GIFT OUT OF NATURAL LOVE AND AFFECTION SINCE HE IS THE SON OF SHRI JAMALUD DIN WHO HAILS FROM BANGALORE. THE ASSESSEE FILED GIFT DECLARATION BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT THE GIFT WAS ABSOLUTELY IRRE VOCABLE AND OUT OF NATURAL LOVE, RESPECT AND AFFECTION WHICH HE BEARS TOWARDS THE DONE E . THE LD.CIT(A) HA D CAREFULL Y GONE THROUGH THE COPY OF THE DECLARATION OF GIFT AND OTHER PARTICULARS. IN HIS OPINION, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE DONOR, HIS RELATIONSHIP AND ALSO OCCASION FOR MAKING A GIFT, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF SARJAN DASS & SONS VS. CIT (264 ITR 435) WHEREIN THE COURT OBSERVED THAT MERE IDENTIFICATION OF THE DONOR AND SHOWING THE MOVEMENT OF GIFT THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT; ONUS IS ON THE A SSESSEE NOT ONLY TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY AND CAPACITY BUT IT HAS TO BE PROVED THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY A GIFT FROM THE DONOR OUT OF NATURAL LOVE AND AFFECTION . IN THE AFORESAID CASE, THE DONOR WAS NOT RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE HON BLE HIGH C OURT OBSERVED THAT IN SUCH CASES MERE TRANSFER OF FUNDS WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT AMOUNT WAS ACTUALLY GIFTED . ITA NO . 406 /BANG/20 1 4 SHRI L.SYED IBRAHIM BAHADUSHA PAGE 3 OF 4 4. THE LD.CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT EVEN IN THIS CASE THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DONOR AND THE DONE E . THE GIF T DEED WAS SIGNED ON A PLAN PAPER WITHOUT AUTHENTICATION OF ANY AUTHORITY AND NOTHING HAS BEEN MENTIONED ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP INTER SE. HE, THEREFORE, CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. 5 . THE CASE WAS POSTED FROM TIME TO TIME ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS BU T NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THOUGH NOTICES WERE SENT BY RPAD. I HAVE, THEREFORE, NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX - PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE DR AND PERUSED THE RECORD. AS ALREADY POINTED OUT BY THE LD.CIT(A), DEED OF GIFT IS ON A PLAIN PIECE OF PAPER WHICH IS NOT SIGNED BEFORE WITNESS AND NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DONOR AND DON E E IS MENTIONED AND THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR GIVING THE GIFT. THE DONOR APPEARS TO BE AN ORDI NARY WORKER WHO HAS GONE ABROAD , LEAVING HIS MOTHERLAND , ONLY TO E KE OUT LIVELIHOOD AND , IN SUCH AN EVENT OF THE MATTER, IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THAT HE HA D GIFT ED HIS HARD EARNED MONEY TO A THIRD PARTY WITHOUT ANY OCCASION AND WITHOUT ESTABLISHING ANY R ELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO. HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ITA NO . 406 /BANG/20 1 4 SHRI L.SYED IBRAHIM BAHADUSHA PAGE 4 OF 4 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRO N OUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH AUGUST , 201 5 . SD/ - ( D.MANMOHAN ) VICE PRESIDENT EKSRINIVASULU COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME - TAX APPELLATE T RIBUNAL BANGALORE