COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I V. A.K. SACHDEVA

ITA/251/2009

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax-I against the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had deleted the addition of Rs. 5,00,000 to the income of Shri A.K. Sachdeva, deemed as unexplained gift income by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal's decision was based on the acceptance of the genuineness of the gift, which was supported by affidavits and the lack of evidence from the revenue to dispute the identity and capacity of the donor, Ramesh Arora, who was the proprietor of M/s Rachna Exports. The High Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Tribunal's findings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 719646 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2009
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. R.R.S. Sibal (269 ITR 429), CIT vs. Smt. Sunita Vachani (184 ITR 121), Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.676/Chandi/2002, ITA No.654/Chandi/2001
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: URVASHI DHUGGA
• Keywords: Assessment year 2003-04; Genuine gift; Income Tax; Unexplained gift
• Section: 260A

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.251 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.11.2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-I -----Appellant Vs. Shri A.K. Sachdeva. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Urvashi Dhugga, Standing Counsel for the revenue. ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred by revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order dated 19.7.2007 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘B’ in I.T.A. No.773/Chandi/2006 for the assessment year 2003-04, proposing to raise following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon’ble ITAT is justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs.5,00,000/- made on account of unexplained gift when the ingredients of making a genuine gift are not satisfied in the present case?” ITA No.251 of 2009 2. The assessee claimed to have received a gift of Rs.5 lac from his maternal uncle Ramesh Arora but the said amount was added to his income by the Assessing Officer, as undisclosed income. On appeal, the CIT(A) accepted the genuineness of the gift which has been affirmed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed:- “....This fact was not disputed that the maternal uncle i.e. Shri Ramesh Arora is the proprietor of M/s Rachna Exports and the cheque was issued by him. It is not a condition precedent that only the cheques/draft/ amount issued from personal bank account is only allowable for making any gift. The ingredients of making gift are duly satisfied in the present appeal. Even the revenue has not doubted the identity and capacity of the donor. The decision from the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. R.R.S. Sibal (269 ITR 429) and CIT vs. Smt. Sunita Vachani (184 ITR 121) clearly supports the case of the assessee wherein affidavits of the donors were furnished. It was held that Tribunal is justified in holding that these were gifts and not income of the assessee. We have not found any evidence nor the department has adduced any evidence that the impugned amount belongs to the assessee in any manner. The donor is the maternal uncle of the assessee and is also in a position to make a gift, therefore, from any angle the gift cannot be suspected. The decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.676/Chandi/2002 dated 20.9.2005, and ITA No.654/Chandi/2001 dt.23.6.06 also supports the case of the assessee. We have 2 ITA No.251 of 2009 also perused the accounts of M/s Rachna Exports maintained at Syndicate Bank, Account No.6022 wherein vide entry dated 8.6.2002 the amount of Rs.5,01,000/- has been debited for making the gift DD No.250001.” 4. In view of concurrent finding of fact recorded by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal that the gift was genuine, no substantial question of law arises. 5. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 06, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3 "