Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (7) TMI 403 - ITAT DELHI

2015 (7) TMI 403 - ITAT DELHI - TMI - Addition u/s 68 - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- The assessee received the first gift of ₹ 2 lacs from Sh. Parveen Kumar. In the course of her statement recorded by the Assessing Officer, it was stated that Sh. Parveen Kumar is a close friend of her husband who gifted this amount on the occasion of her marriage anniversary. As regards the Inspector's report that Sh. Parveen Kumar was not traceable at the given address, we find that the asses .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eceived from NRI donors, namely, Sh. Manmeet Pal Singh and Sh. Harminder Singh, we find that the assessee categorically stated before the Assessing Officer during the course of her statement that both these persons are real brothers and their father Sh. Ajit Singh is very close friend of her father-in-law, Sh. Gurucharan Singh. Both these persons were stated to be family friends. Not only that, the assessee also gave personal particulars of these donors by explaining the nature of business carri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Manmeet Pal Singh to the tune of ₹ 31.60 lac, out of which a sum of ₹ 8 lacs was gifted to the assessee. Thus no hesitation in holding that the assessee discharged her burden in not only proving the identity of the donors, but also their capacity and genuineness of the gift transactions. - Decided against revenue. - ITA No.2280/Del /2007 - Dated:- 18-3-2015 - R. S. Syal, AM And C. M. Garg, JM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri T Vasanthan, Sr. DR For the Respondent : Shri Tarandeep Singh, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as under: Name of the donor Date of gift Amount 1. Sh. Manmeet Pal Singh 29.08.2002 ₹ 8 lacs 2. Sh. Harminder Singh 20.06.2002 ₹ 7 lacs 3. Sh. Parveen Kumar 17.05.2002 ₹ 2 lacs 4. On being called upon to substantiate the genuineness of these credits, the assessee stated that the above amounts represented gifts from different donors, the first two being, Non-Resident Indians and the third one being, an Indian. In support of the genuineness of the gifts from each of the NRI dono .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

donor. c) The copy of the PAN d) The copy of ration card. e) The copy of I.T. and W.T. return. 6. The assessee was called to produce the third donor, namely, Sh. Parveen Kumar who was Indian resident. The assessee expressed her inability to produce Sh. Parveen Kumar. Thereafter, summons under Section 131 of the Act was issued in the name of Sh. Parveen Kumar for personal appearance. The Assessing Officer also deputed Inspector to serve the summons who reported on 06.01.2006 that there was no suc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

income tax return; a copy of gift deed; a copy of affidavit by the donor duly attested by the Notary; and a copy of bank statement of the assessee (wherein the gifted amount was deposited and ultimately credited to her account). The Assessing Officer refused to accept the genuineness of the gift by holding that the assessee failed to establish the identity of the donor inasmuch as ration card and PAN can also be fraudulently obtained. As regards the other two gifts received from non-resident do .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

icer recorded the statement of the assessee on 24.01.2006 and observed that the assessee never gifted any amount to these three donors and further the assessee never visited NRI donors at Singapore. In the absence of any blood relation between the donors and the assessee, the Assessing Officer made the addition of ₹ 15 lacs under Section 68 of the Act. The learned CIT(A), on appreciation of the evidence on record, ordered for the deletion of the addition. 7. We have heard the rival submiss .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rd but also of the PAN card and other evidence divulging the correct address of Sh. Parveen Kumar which was given to the Assessing Officer. There cannot be any reason to accept the view point of the Assessing Officer that PAN and ration card can also be fraudulently obtained. When the Inspector adversely reported about the nonavailability of Sh. Parveen Kumar on the given address, it was thereafter that the assessee submitted a copy of ration card and PAN card evidencing the address of Sh. Parve .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Officer was not satisfied with the genuineness of the gift despite this overwhelming evidence proving prima facie the genuineness of the gift, then he should have got the inquiry conducted from the income tax file of Sh. Parveen Kumar for which all the relevant particulars were available with him. In our considered opinion, learned CIT(A) was right in accepting the assessee's contention about the genuineness of the gift received by the assessee from Sh. Parveen Kumar. 8. As regards the gift .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version