9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (5) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out of his own savings from his property income. In support of the above Expln., the assessee filed copies of statement of gifts made by the three persons at Raipur and as per the statement, the following three persons made gift to the assessee: (1) Shri Vasudeo, s/o Chandumal, Telibandh, Raipur : Rs. 25,000 on 4th April, 1981. (2) Shri M.L. Soni, Faradih, Raipur : Rs. 25,000 on 2nd April, 1981. (3) Smt. Kusumbai Bakhda, Fafadih, Raipur : Rs. 25,000 on 3rd April, 1981. 4. The above donors had filed their gift-tax returns in the IT Office at Raipur. The assessee produced photostat copies of the acknowledgments of the gift-tax returns filed. It was seen that all the returns were filed on 14th March, 1985 in the IT Office. It was also seen from the declaration of gifts, the donors made the gifts without any consideration. The ITO has taken a view that all the above three persons had confirmed to have made gifts to the assessee with sole aim of helping the assessee to explain the source of a sum of Rs. 75,000. In view of the date of submission of the return of gifts, the ITO has taken a view that the evidence was cooked up when the query as to the sources of investment was raised o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee had fully explained the fact of having received gifts from three parties, namely, Shri Vasudeo s/o Shri Chandumal, Shri M.L. Soni and Smt. Kusumbai Bakhda of Raipur parties. It has been submitted that all the three persons are assessed to income-tax and their GIR Nos. were duly disclosed to the lower authorities. All the three persons have filed statement of gifts where it was duly confirmed to have made gift to the appellant which was also duly evidenced by witnesses. Further, all the above donors had filed gift-tax returns which were duly accepted by the Department. The assessee also produced affidavits sworn by the donors confirming to have given gifts to the assessee before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. It has been argued that the CIT(A) is not justified in rejecting the Expln. and the supporting documents produced by the assessee, merely on the ground that the donors filed gift-tax returns in March, 1985 after the Assessing Officer had raised a query to explain the sources of investment and although the donors were income-tax assessees, the sources from which the gifts have been made were not available. It has been argued that the delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re genuine gifts. On an application to direct reference, their Lordships held while dismissing the application, that the gift-tax assessments having been made on the donors and that fact not having been controverted by the Commissioner and the latter having failed to take any steps to disturb these assessments made on the donors, it was amply clear that the gifts were genuine. In the case of D.C. Jain vs. ITO (1988) 32 TTJ (Del) 442 where the ITO doubted the genuineness of the gift on the ground that two donors were not related to the assessee and they were not residents of the place where the bank drafts were payable, it has been held that the facts could only raise a suspicion as to the possible course for the gift and the ITO could have embarked upon a proper enquiry. But instead of making any enquiry, he just rejected the evidence produced by the assessee. Initial burden lay on the assessee had been fully discharged and it was for the Revenue to rebut the evidence produced by the assessee. The assessee had filed gift-deeds executed by the two donors as well as their affidavits giving all the necessary details about the identity. The affidavits mentioned that the donors were inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted undisclosed income of the assessee. The Revenue was not justified in drawing adverse inference and adding amounts of the cash credits to the income of the assessee and deleted the addition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in this case the respondent had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the said creditors were income-tax assessees. Their index Nos. were in the file of the Revenue. The Revenue apart from issuing notice unders. 131 at the instance of the respondent assessee, did not pursue the matter further. The Revenue did not examine the sources of income of the said alleged creditors to find out whether they were creditworthy. There was no effort made to pursue the so-called alleged creditors. In those circumstances the respondent could not be anything further. In the premises if the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the respondent had discharged the burden that lay on it, then it could not be said that such a conclusion was unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence. If the conclusion was raised on such evidence on which a conclusion would be arrived at, no question of law as such arose. The j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ell as the various judicial decisions cited in support of the claim. We find that there is considerable force in the assessee's appeal. It is not disputed that the assessee had filed written Expln. as regards the sources of credits of Rs. 75,000 in his capital account in the books of M/s Omprakash Satyapal, Korba. It was stated that he received gifts of Rs. 25,000 each from Shri Vasudeo, Shri M.L. Soni and Smt. Kusumbai Bakhda in the first week of April, 1981. The assessee also had duly filed affidavit in support of the claim where the three persons had confirmed to have given gifts to the assessee. The donors in their affidavits had also duly stated that the gift-tax returns were filed by them to the ITO (Survey), Rajpur. The donors also stated their GIR. Nos. in the affidavits. The full names and addresses are also duly stated. It is also seen from the paper book that the donors were duly assessed to gift-tax as per returns submitted by them. The ITO without making further enquiry or without asking the assessee to produce the donors or without issuing summons under s. 131 of the IT Act to the donors has rejected the assessee's Explanation. We, therefore, find that the arguments o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nting to Rs. 27,900 was duly furnished before the Assessing Officer. It is further submitted that the above lady has not shown cash in hand and merely on the basis of this fact the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) did not accept the Expln.. It is argued that the above lady had not shown cash in hand in her wealth-tax returns inadvertently. However, she had revised her returns and cash in hand was duly shown and accepted by the ITO. In support of above, the learned counsel filed paper book and at pages 71 to 75 the revised computation of net wealth of the above lady was shown and the cash in hand as on 31st March, 1981 was Rs. 23,500. It was further submitted that the above lady had revised her return of net wealth from the asst. yrs. 1977-78 to 1981-82 in view of Circular No. 439--F. No. 225/86/85-IT (A-II), dt. 15th Nov., 1985. It has further been argued that the fact that the above lady had rental income was not disputed and the entire amount was not deposited by her with the firm and when she has stated that she had rental income and out of this she advanced the money to the assessee, there is no reason to disbelieve the same. The amount advanced is, therefore, duly proved and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocumentary evidence without making further enquiries. 15. As regards the investment of Rs. 37,000 made by the appellant stated to be out of his own savings from house property income, the learned counsel argued that the assessee had property income since the past years is not disputed and the lower authorities merely rejected the Expln. on the ground that the cash in hand was not shown by the appellant in his wealth-tax return for the asst. yr. 1981-82. It is argued that the property income earned by the assessee was not deposited with the firm in the preceding years and there was no separate withdrawals for household expenses. Therefore, the availability of fund with the assessee was proved and this fact was duly shown in the revised returns for wealth-tax filed by the assessee for the asst. yrs. 1976-77 to 1981-82 which were accepted by the Department. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the sources of the deposit. It has further been submitted that the income-tax assessments in respect of the asst. yrs. 1978-79 to 1981-82 were reopened and fresh assessment orders were passed under s. 143(3)/148 of the IT Act and the cash available was duly assessed as per orders dt. 31s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
