9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. That the addition confirmed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) is arbitrary, illegal, illogical and unwarranted without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. That the appellant craves to leave or amend grounds of appeal till the appeal remains undisposed off." 2. The brief facts in the grounds of appeal of the assessee are that the assessee had received gifts of various sums during the relevant previous year including a sum of Rs.2,34,000/- on 10.10.2005 and Rs.2,35,000/- on 03.11.2005, which were stated to be gifts from his sister in law Smt. Amarjit Kaur, who was settled alongwith his brother Ram Gopal in the UK. The assessee's brother Sh. Ram Gopal had also gifted sums of Rs.1,93,800/-, Rs.1,97,242/- and Rs.1,97,242/- of different dates in the month of March, 2006 to him. The gifts from Sh. Ram Gopal had been given from Sh. Ram Gopal's bank account No.13539 in Bank of India whereas the gifs from Smt. Amarjit had come from Canara Bank, Nakodar Branch NRE A/c No.40439 and Bank of Baroda, Birmingham, UK Branch respectively. In the assessment in the case of M/s. Gupta Brothers, where the assessee is a partner, these gifts totaling Rs.4,69,000/- rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oted that in the statement of Smt. Amarjit Kaur recorded during the assessment proceedings in the case of M/s. Gupta Bros, she could not give details of the bank account in which she had bank account at Nakodar or the amount deposited in the bank. She admitted that she had never given any type of gift whether in cash or kind to her parental relatives who were doing labour job in the village. Though she claimed to have operated her bank accounts herself, she was not aware of the bank deposits in her bank account. She expressed her inability to state the nature of the money she had given to the assessee: whether it was a loan or a gift and further admitted that all the transactions were between her husband and the assessee. She was also not aware that the money given to the assessee had been received back or not. No gift deed in respect of amounts advanced to assessee by her was executed either in India or in the UK. The AO, therefore, held that the assessee was not able to discharge his onus of proving the capacity and creditworthiness of the donor, and the sources from where the funds were alleged to have been gifted was not clarified. He noted that the occasion for making a gift w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to the assessee was the money advanced by Sh. Jatinder Kumar Sidhu to the assessee after the AO asked for the production of bank statement of Smt. Amarjit Kaur. The copy of the bank account of Sh. Jatinder Kumar Sidhu shows a cash withdrawal of 6000 pounds in October, 2005, which is stated to have been given to Smt. Amarjit Kaur. Sh. Jatinder Kumar Sidhu is claimed to be a cousin of the assessee. These facts clearly show hat the money stated to have been gifted by Smt. Amarjit Kaur to the assessee was not her own, even if the loan from Sh. Jatinder Kumar Sidhu is accepted to be genuine. This is a significant factor as far as the genuineness of the gift is concerned. A gift normally connotes a transaction where a person parts his own property to another without consideration and for love and affection. It is rare to come across a person who makes a gift of money to another out of the borrowed funds. Moreover, Smt. Amarjit Kaur as not a person of substantial means. The assistance from the Govt. of UK which is stated to have been received by her is on account of child tax credit amounting to Rs.2241.10 pounds vide intimation dated 30.01.2006 (after the gifts were remitted) and she ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bank account herself. She stated that she had not extended any help to her brothers or their children for her marriage. In response to question no.13, she stated she never gifted any amount to any of her in-laws in the past, though some gifts in the nature of cloth, telephone or domestic use were given. She confronted that she had not made any gift in cash either to Sh. Sat Pal or any family member. Though she was aware of bank account in UK, she did not know the amount deposited therein. She was also aware of the bank account in Nakodar but did not remember the name of the bank or the amount deposited in the said bank account. In reply to question no.18 she stated that she had given some money to Sh. Sat Pal many times but did not remember the amount or the number of times the money was given, or whether it was a gift or a loan. When informed that Sh. Sat Pal had claimed to have received Rs.2,34,000/- and Rs.2,35,000/- from her and asked to confirm and give evidence for the same.She stated that she did not know the exact date and year of gift and had no evidence with her at that time. The aforesaid statement reveals that Smt. Amarjit Kaur was certainly not a person of means or kn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ift, unless inter-alia, the credit-worthiness of the donor was also proven. In the present case, the alleged donor, Smt. Amarjit Kaur, is certainly not shown to be credit worthy since she had no indepdent sources of income and even the allowance received from the UK Govt. was not sufficient to cover the alleged gifts. The claim of taking a loan from Sh. Jatinder Kumar Sidhu is doubtful since the transaction was admittedly in cash and the claim has also been made at a very late stage. The transaction is also not verifiable. Further, as noted earlier, the claim of making gift out of the borrowed money is against normal human probability. The contention that the assessee had no other source of income is not relevant as far as addition u/s 68 of the Act is concernd, since this is a deeming provision which treats unexplained cash credit as the assessee's income. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the decisions of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court mentioned hereinabove, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), who has rightly confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 8. In the result, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
