TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. K Garg Narwana for the respondent. JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee proposing the following substantial questions of law arising out of the order dated January 19, 2005, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short, "the Tribunal") in I. T. A. No. 503/Chandi/2001, in respect of the assessment year 1997-98: "A. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the action of the authorities below by upholding the addition made on account of the impugned gift of Rs. 1 lakh? B. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal are perverse and aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801. The Tribunal concluded that the gift was not genuine. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 5. A gift is generally given out of natural love and affection and without any consideration, which necessarily denotes the closeness between the donor and the donee. It can be given either on some occasion or to help a relative or friend. To see the genuineness of a gift, the test of human probability is the most appropriate. A gift cannot be accepted as such to be genuine, merely because the amount has come by way of a cheque or draft through banking channel, unless the identity of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the gift received by the assessee was not genuine. Learned counsel for the assessee, though took pains to challenge to the findings recorded by the Tribunal, but miserably failed as he was not able to justify the inherent discrepancies in the statement made by the assessee himself. The view taken by the Tribunal is only possible view in the facts and the evidence on record. Concurring with the same, we do not find any merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for the assessee. 9. In the judgment dated July 31, 2006, rendered by us in I. T. A. No. 265 of 2006 ( Subhash Chander Sekhri v. Deputy CIT [2007] 290 ITR 300 (P H), wherein in identical circumstances, we have upheld the view taken by the Tribunal. 10. In view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
