TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1-2004 - Judge(s) : G. S. SINGHVI., AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by Ajay Kumar Mittal J.- In this appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), the assessee has prayed for determination of the following substantial questions of law:- "(a) Whether the amount of gift of Rs. 2,01,000 drawn by the nonresident Indian donor from his bank account and deposited in the bank account of the donee could be included in the assessment made under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the bank account of the donee already stands disclosed to the Department? (b) Whether the amount of Rs. 89,500 being alleged difference in the value of plot could be included in the assessment made under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act disregarding the registration deed and other evidence?" For deciding the aforementioned questions, we may briefly notice the facts. As a consequence of the search and seizure operation conducted by the officers of the Income-tax Department on October 31, 1996, under section 132(1) of the Act at the residential premises (house No. 315, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt.) jointly occupied by Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to any substantial question of law, more so because the Tribunal, on an independent appreciation of evidence, upheld the same. Shri Bindal pointed out that the assessee had not disclosed the gift in question in the returns relating to the relevant assessment years and, therefore, the same was rightly treated as undisclosed income within the meaning of section 158BC of the Act for the purposes of making additions while framing the block assessment. On the second issue, Shri Bindal invited our attention to the statement made by the appellant during the course of search and seizure operation on October 31, 1996, wherein he candidly admitted that the plot was acquired by him for Rs. 1,65,000 and argued that in view thereof, the Assessing Officer correctly made the addition of Rs. 89,500 by treating the said investment out of undisclosed income of the assessee for the assessment year 1989-90. We have given serious thought to the respective arguments and perused the record. Paragraphs 57 to 62 of the Tribunal's order, which contain detailed discussion on the issue of addition of Rs. 2,01,000 made by the Assessing Officer, read as under: "57. We have considered the rival submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee deposed that he had sent messages to the village of Sh. Kala Chauhan and he should be able to produce him by December 6, 1996. This clearly shows that at the point of time when the statement was made, the alleged donor or his relatives were in touch with the assessee otherwise an undertaking could not be given to the effect that he would be produced by December 6, 1996. 59. It is also a matter of record that the assessee had not received any gift at any point of time either from his family members or near relatives and it appears rather strange that Sh. Kala Chauhan who is stated to be a friend of the assessee's brother's brother-in-law, should give a gift to the assessee rather than his brother's brother-in-law or for that matter the assessee's brother. 60. The statement recorded as also the further queries raised, revealed that the gift of Rs. 2,01,000 was given by Sh. Kala Chauhan on learning that the assessee's brother was constructing a house. In other words, there is a purpose and reason stated for the alleged gift whereas a gift is normally given out of love and affection. 61. It is also noted from the assessment order that prior to going to Austria, Sh. Ka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so-called gift made by the nonresident Indian in favour of the assessee was not genuine. We are afraid, that is not the scope of appeal under section 260A of the Act. This court while adjudicating an appeal under section 260A of the Act is required to decide only substantial questions of law and shall interfere if it is shown that the finding of the Tribunal is either perverse, arbitrary or is based on no material or is contrary to any statutory provision. This court cannot interfere with the order only on the ground that on a reappraisal of evidence, as an appellate forum, a different view can be taken. Learned counsel for the appellant, has not been able to show by referring to any material on record that the factum of gift from a non-resident Indian was ever disclosed in the returns filed by the assessee. Thus, we do not find any valid ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the Tribunal. None of the cases relied on by learned counsel for the appellant has got any parallel with the case before us, Therefore, the same cannot be made the basis for deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer which, as mentioned above, was upheld by the Tribunal. On the issue of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
