High Court Of Punjab & Haryana
Jaspal Singh vs. CIT
Sections 68, 260A
Asst. Year 1998-99
Adarsh Kumar Goel & Rajesh Bindal, JJ.
IT Appeal No. 256 of 2006
15th September, 2006
Counsel Appeared
S.K. Mukhi, for the Appellant
ORDER
By the court :
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of Tribunal, Chandigarh, dt. 7th Oct., 2005 for the asst. yr. 1998-99, proposing following substantial questions of law :
“(a) whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the action of authorities below by upholding the addition made on account of impugned gifts of Rs. 2 lakhs, 1.70 lakhs and 0.30 lakhs ?
(b) whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings of Tribunal are perverse and against the evidences on record thus unsustainable in law ?
(c) whether the Tribunal has misdirected itself in being influenced by irrelevant factors and applying erroneous criteria while deciding the issue of genuineness of the impugned gifts ?”
Facts noticed in the order of the Tribunal are that the assessee had constructed house property. He had claimed to have received various gifts aggregating to Rs. 15,69,000 for asst. yrs. 1997-98 to 2001-02 from various non- residents. In the year under appeal, the assessee had claimed to have received a sum of Rs. 4,70,000 from non- residents and Rs. 1,20,000 from four persons at Rs. 30,000 each. The assessee was asked to establish the identity of the donors, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the gifts. In the case of Smt. Surinder Kaur, the assessee filed an affidavit along with copy of the bank draft No. FRA 163292 dt. 10th Dec., 1997 of State Bank of India, Frankfurt/Main Germany Branch. The AO had recorded the statement of the assessee. Some of the relevant questions have been quoted by the AO in the assessment order along with replies given by the assessee. On the basis of the statement of the assessee and the relevant evidence on record, the AO came to the conclusion that even the identity of the donor was in doubt. The genuineness of the gifts was not established and that she was not related to the assessee and there was no occasion for making the gift. Reasons given by the AOs with regard to the gift made by Smt. Surinder Kaur are : “The perusal of the above statement clearly establishes the following facts: (A) The donor is not in any way related or closely connected to the assessee family. Apparently, she is a professional donor. (B) Donor’s family never received similar gifts from the assessee family on any occasion. (C) The only intimacy with the assessee family was that she happened to be sister of the neighbour of the assessee living in 14, Bank Colony, Patiala and the assessee was living in 13, Bank Colony, Patiala, that too on rent, otherwise the assessee even does not know the name of the husband of the donor or his address and telephone number, etc. (D) The donor shifted to Germany 15-20 years back. (E) The donor never made similar gifts to her real brothers living in 14, Bank Colony where she is stated to be the regular visitor. Her brothers have not even renovated their old house for the last 20-25 years. Had she been generous enough to donate to the assessee living next door to her brothers, she would have first preferred to help renovate the house of her brothers and would have helped her brothers to expand their petty dairy business. (F) The assessee family has not much close relationship even with the brothers of the donor living next door. (G) It is totally unbelievable that the donor will run from pillar to post to entire exclusion of the donee, to buy papers for affidavit, get the same typed and attested after making gift of such huge amount and then hand over demand drafts and affidavits personally at the shop of the assessee and it is also unbelievable that the donee did not know the advocate attesting the affidavit at Patiala. All this appears to be a concocted story. (H) The perusal of copy of bank draft No. FRA 163292 dt. 10th Dec., 1997 of State Bank of India, Frankfurt/Main Germany Branch relevant that donor had given her name as Sukhwinder Kaur giving her account No. K-5405 and had signed as S. Kaur. However, the affidavit was filed in the name of Surinder Kaur Chawla and the signatures on Jaspal Singh, the assessee, stated that actual name of the donor is Smt. Surinder Kaur. In view of these facts even the identity of the donor is not confirmed either from the name or from the signatures on affidavit and bank draft. (I) In view of the above facts genuineness of the gifts has not been conclusively proved that the amount was needed by the assessee for construction of house and for this purpose he has manipulated the affairs in this fashion. Accordingly, the alleged receipt of gift from Smt. Surinder Kaur is not proved, as Smt. Surinder Kaur has no relationship or consideration to make such gifts nor there was any such occasion for making such gifts.”
For similar reasons, the gifts alleged to have been made by Shri Jagdev Singh and Shri D.S. Chahal were not found to be genuine. As regards the gift made by Berjinder Pal Singh, who was nephew of the assessee, the matter was remanded to the AO.
4. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are perverse and the gift should have been held to be genuine.
5. Reliance has been placed on judgments of Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Mrs. Sunita Vachani (1990) 84 CTR (Del) 18 : (1990) 184 ITR 121 (Del) and CIT vs. R.S. Sibal (2004) 187 CTR (Del) 291, wherein gifts from strangers were held to be valid.
6. We are unable to accept the submissions made. It is well-settled that mere identification of donor and showing the movement of gift amount through banking channel is not enough to prove genuineness of the gift. The assessee was required to establish that the donor had the means and the gift was genuine, for natural love and affection. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of this Court in Lall Chand Kalra vs. CIT (1981) 22 CTR (P&H) 135, judgment of Delhi High Court in Sajan Dass & Sons vs. CIT (2003) 181 CTR (Del) 581 : (2003) 264 ITR 435 (Del), CIT vs. Durga Prasad More 1973 CTR (SC) 500 : (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 125 CTR (SC) 124 : (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC).
7. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the assessee are distinguishable. In the said judgments, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the gifts were genuine which was held to be a pure finding of fact. We have dealt with this aspect of the matter at length in our judgment dt. 31st July, 2006 in Subhash Chander Sekhri vs. Dy. CIT (IT Appeal No. 265 of 2006) [reported at (2006) 205 CTR (P&H) 620—Ed.]
We are of the view that concurrent finding of fact recorded by the authorities that the gifts in question were not genuine, is pure finding of fact and no substantial question of law arises.
Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
[Citation : 290 ITR 306]
