TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 968X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to show natural love and affection of the donor for the donee nor there being any occasion to make such gifts to the assessee - the assesse was unable to show that there was any occasion or relationship to make the gift – Decided in favour of Revenue. - Income Tax Appeal No. 602 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 3-4-2014 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Jaspal Singh,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Katoch Advocate, for Ms. Urvashi Dugga, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ravi Shankar, Advocate ORDER Jaspal Singh, J 1. This is an appeal preferred under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') by the revenue feeling dissatisfied against order dated June 23, 2006 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Income Tax Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on account of his income from undisclosed sources. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings as prescribed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The assessee thereafter preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh [to be referred as, 'the CIT(A)]. The CIT(A), while holding the addition made by the Assessing Officer to be justified, rejected the assessee s appeal qua Gift of Rs. 2,60,000/-. However, the appeal against addition of Rs. 37,600/- on account of unexplained silver jewellery was succeeded vide order dated March 2, 2001. The assessee Kiran Bala challenged the order of CIT(A) by filing the appeal (ITA No.655/Chandi/2001) which was allowed vide impugned order. 5. Being a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention of the courts. This Court in Lal Chand Kalra Versus CIT (1981) 22 CTR 135 had held that NRI gift from a stranger was neither genuine nor valid. This judgment was followed in Jaspal Singh Versus CIT (ITA No.256 of 2006) decided on 15.9.2006 by this Court as also judgment in Sajan Dass and Sons Versus CIT (2003) 264 ITR 435 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Recently, this Court in ITA No.498 of 2005 decided on 7.2.2011 titled Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal Versus Puneet Singh had taken the same view holding as under: We are of the view that the Assessing Officer and the CIT (A) were justified in holding that the gift in question was bogus and the Tribunal committed patent error in accepting the gift as genuine. Admittedly, the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hip nor there being any circumstance to show natural love and affection of the donor for the donee nor there being any occasion to make such gifts to the assessee and the authority of jurisdictional High Court being against the assessee, the authority cited by the assessee as Commissioner of Income Tax v. R.S. Sibal, (2004) 269 ITR 429 does not support the case of the appellant. Thus, there is no perversity or impropriety in the impugned order and sequelly the same is upheld. 10. Similar view has been reiterated by this Court, also, in ITA No.203 of 2006 titled The Commissioner of Income Tax-Jalandhar-II, Jalandhar vs. Sh. Subhash Chander , decided on January 29, 2014 while placing reliance on the case of M/s Udham Singh sons (supra) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
