9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (9) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Karta. 2. The common grievance projected in all these appeals by the Revenue is that the learned Dy. CIT(A) is not justified in directing the Assessing Officer to exclude the amounts of gifts received by the assessees and held by the Assessing Officer as non-genuine, from the total income of the assessees. 2.1 Dr. J.J. Kansagara (Individual) received the following gifts:- Asstt. Year 1984-85 Rs. 25,000 From Shri Madhavbhai Shambhubhai Rs. 10,000 From Shri Khimji Gokalbhai Rs. 25,000 From Shri Babubhai Tapubhai Rs. 20,000 From Shri Nagji Ravji ------------ Rs. 80,006 ------------ Asstt. Year 1985-86 Rs. 25,000 From Shri Liladhar Bhimji Rs. 25,000 From Shri Bhola Tapubhai ------------ Rs. 50,000 ------------ Asstt. Year 1986-87 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they had made gifts to the donees by cheques and that they had made gifts out of their savings out of agricultural income. They also furnished evidence in respect of agricultural holdings held by them. The A.O. completed the gift-tax assessments on protective basis, holding that it would not appeal to the human common sense that illiterate agriculturists would give gifts of huge amounts to the assessees who were running an ultra modern surgical hospital at Rajkot and having very lucrative practice. Holding that so called gifts were in reality income of the assessees from undisclosed sources, the A.O. added the same to the respective total income of the assessees. 4. On appeal, the learned Dy. CIT(A) held that no independent reasons had be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the hands of the donors the same should not be treated as the undisclosed income of the donors as proceedings in the I.T. Act and the Gift-tax Act are distinct and independent. 6. Shri R.T. Shah, the learned counsel for the assessees reiterated the submissions made before the Dy. CIT(A). He submitted that the donors appeared in person before the G.T.O. and their statements were recorded., The learned counsel for the assessees drew our attention to the statements of the donors placed at pages 1 to 21 of the paper book. He submitted that the donors had admitted very categorically that they had made the gifts to the assessees and that too by cheques/drafts. The donors had also furnished the evidence in support of their sources of income which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ying the test of human probabilities is a must. Applying the test of human probabilities it cannot be accepted that the gifts received by the assessees from the agriculturists were genuine ones. The fact that the gifts were received by cheques/ drafts has no relevance because as held by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd [1994] 208 ITR 465. "Mere payment by account payee cheque is not sacrosanct nor can it make the non-genuine transaction genuine". As stated above, the donors were rank outsiders/strangers (not related to the assessees even distantly) and there was no occasion for making the huge gifts to the well to do assessees and as such the genuineness of the gifts to the assessees cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
