I.T.A. No. 805/Del/2011
Assessment year: 2002-03
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH: `A' NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
SHRI C. M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A .No.805/DEL/2011
ASSESSMENT YEAR-2002-03
Shri Bhim Singh Jain, ITO,
RZ-A/59, Gali No.4, Ward 24(4),
Mahipalpur, New Delhi. vs New Delhi.
(PAN: AAIPJ9707F)
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
Appellant by Shri Adlakha, Adv.
Respondent by Shri K.K. Jaiswal, DR
Date of Hearing 15.10.2015
Date of Pronouncement 09.12.2015
ORDER
PER C. M. GARG, JM
This appeal by the assessee has been directed against the order of the Ld.
CIT(A)-XXII, New Delhi dated 11/11/2010 passed in Appeal No. 235/07-08
for assessment year 2002-03.
2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as follows:-
"1. That the CIT(A) was unjustified in confirming the
addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- made by the Assessing officer.
2. That the learned CIT(A) erred and acted arbitrary in
placing reliance on in admissible evidence in the shape of
the statement of Shri Gian Chand Donor recorded at the
1
I.T.A. No. 805/Del/2011
Assessment year: 2002-03
back of the assesse and not provided to the assessee. The
appellant was not provided an opportunity to cross examine
the witness of the revenue.
3. That the CIT(A) was not justified in ignoring the vital
evidence filed by the assessee being confirmation in the
shape of affidavit, bank statement showing debit entry of Rs.
4,00,000/- copy of ITR, GIFT Deed etc..
4. That the initial and primary on-us which lay upon the
appellant was discharged by filing vital evidence as
mentioned in Ground No. 3.
5. That the CIT(A) failed to consider the Judgement of the
Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Padam Singh
Chauhan (2010) 214 Taxation 792 (Rajasthan).
6. That the addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- had been wrongly
sustained by the CIT(A)" .
3. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the relevant
material placed on record before us. Learned counsel of the assessee contended
that the CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition and he was not
justified in placing reliance on inadmissible evidence i.e. the so-called statement
of Shri Gian Chand Jain donor recorded on the back of the assessee and copy of
which was not provided to the assessee and the appellant was also not provided
opportunity to cross-examine the said witness of the revenue. Learned counsel
of the assessee took us through assessee paper book-I and II which contain 14
and 8 pages and submitted that the assessee filed copy of gift deed, affidavit of
donor Shri Gian Chand Jain, confirmation, copy of donor's IT Return, copy of
donor's bank statement along with his PAN Number and the assessee also
submitted statement of affairs of donor as on 31.3.2001 and hence, the assessee
2
I.T.A. No. 805/Del/2011
Assessment year: 2002-03
discharged its onus to establish genuineness of the transaction of gift supported
by identity, capability and capacity to donate of the donor. Placing reliance on
the recent order of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi dated 11.4.2012
in I.T.A. No. 212/2012 in the case of CIT vs Goel Sons Golden Estate Pvt. Ltd.,
the learned counsel of the assessee submitted that on the details, evidence and
explanation of the assessee if the Assessing Officer did not consequent thereto
conduct any inquiry and closed the proceedings and the Assessing Officer has
failed to conduct necessary inquiry, verification and deal with the matter in
depth specially when the affidavit, confirmation and other relevant documents
and evidence were filed, then in the absence of this inquiry, addition cannot be
held as sustainable and valid.
4. Learned counsel of the assessee also placed reliance on following
orders/judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Courts:-
(i) C. Vasantlal & Co. Vs CIT 45 ITR 206(S.C.)
(ii) CIT vs Orissa Cement Corporation 159 ITR 78 (S.C.)
(iii) CIT vs Eastern Commercial Enterprise 210 ITR 103 (Calcutta)
(iv) CIT vs SMC Share Brokers Ltd. 288 ITR 103 (Calcutta)
(v) CIT vs Padam Singh Chouhan (2010) 214 Taxation 792 (Raj)
5. Learned Departmental Representative supported the stand and action of
the authorities below and submitted that the genuineness of the transaction of
gift and capacity of donor was not established and the donor himself in his
3
I.T.A. No. 805/Del/2011
Assessment year: 2002-03
statement admitted to have been given bogus entry of gift to the assessee and
hence, addition is sustainable.
6. On careful consideration of above, at the very outset, we note that the
sole basis of addition is the statement of Shri Gian Chand Jain before
Investigation Wing that he had given accommodation entry to the assessee. The
assessee submitted copies of gift deed, affidavit, confirmation of IT Return,
PAN No., bank statement and statement of affair as on 31.3.2001 of the donor.
The assessee also requested the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 28.10.2011
but the same was not supplied to him and this fact is amply clear from noting of
Inspector of the department dated 28.10.2010 (assessee's paper book II page 1)
and this cross examination on such witness was also not provided to the
assessee. Now, we respectfully take note of dicta laid down by Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs SMC Brokers Ltd. (supra) wherein it was
held that in absence of the witness being made available for cross-examination
for the assessee, his statement could not be relied. In the present case, even
copy of statement was not provided to the assessee, the question of cross-
examination comes thereafter.
7. When we analyse the orders of the authorities below, we note that the
CIT(A) upheld the addition by concluding as under:-
" 6.2 The appellant has contended that treating gift of
Rs.4,00,000/- from Shri Gian Chand Jain as non genuine was
4
I.T.A. No. 805/Del/2011
Assessment year: 2002-03
'wrong and misconceived since the gifts were duly confirmed by
the donor and were received through proper banking channel,
the appellant has furnished copy of girt deed executed between
the donor and the donee, copy of affidavit confirming the gift,
copy of return of income of the donor, copy of PAN Card of the
donor and copy of bank statement showing debit entry of
Rs.4,00,000/- against gift cheque no. 496716 on 21 .03.2002.
However, the courts have held that mere identification of the
donor and showing the movement of the amount through banking
channels is not sufficient to prove the genuineness of the gift. The
onus lies on the donee not only to establish the identity of the
donor, but also the donor's capacity to make such a gift. Where
there was nothing on record to show as to (i) what was the
financial capacity of the donors, (ii) what was the
creditworthiness of the donors, (iii) what was the kind of
relationship the donors had with the donee-appellant, (iv) what
are the source of funds gifted to the appellant, and (v) whether
the donors had the capacity of giving large amount of gift to the
appellant, it would not be justified in deleting the additions made
by the Assessing Officer, especially when the appellant did not
appear in person before the Assessing Officer , despite being
asked to do so - CIT v. Anil Kumar 120081 167 Taxman 143 (
Delhi). Even though money had flown through bank account, the
identity of the person giving gifts was established, their
creditworthiness proved, the transaction; from the donor to the
appellant was unusual. There was no relationship between the
donor and donee and there was no occasion for making the gifts,
I have examined the bank, pass book of the donor, and observe
that he had only Rs.20,832/- as balance before issuance of the
cheque to the done, a credit of Rs. 3,85,000/- immediately prior
to making the gift and Rs.5,832/- as balance after issuance of
cheque. The donor's return, of income for A.Y. 2001-02 shows
taxable income of only Rs.1,10,410/- with a tax liability of
Rs.165/-. Whereas he has gifted the sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-, nearly
four times of his annual income. To see the genuineness of a gift
5
I.T.A. No. 805/Del/2011
Assessment year: 2002-03
cannot be accepted to be genuine, merely because the amount
has come by way of a cheque or draft through, banking channel,
unless the identity of the donor, his creditworthiness, relationship
with the donee and the occasion is proved. Unless the recipient
proves the genuineness thereof, the same can very well be treated
to be an accommodation entry of the assessee's own money,
which is not disclosed for the purpose of taxation. The above
considerations for testing the genuineness of a gift are not
exhaustive, as there may be other reasons also which would be
appropriate for considering the genuineness of a gift are not
exhaustive, as there may be other reasons also which would be
appropriate for considering the genuineness of a gift (Tiurath
Ram Gupta vs CIT (2008) 304 ITR 145 (Pun & Har). Reliance is
also made to the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the
case of Sajan Dass and Sons v CIT (2003) 264 ITR 435 wherein
the Hon'ble Court examining the issue has held as under:-
"A mere identification of the donor and showing the.
movement of the gift amount through banking channels is not
sufficient to prove the genuineness of the gift. Since the claim is
made by the asscssce, the onus lies on him not only to establish
the identity of the person making the gift but also his capacity to
make a gift and that it has actually been received as a gift from
the donor."
It has to be kept in view that a `family, friend' who gifted
Rs.4.00,000/- to the appellant out of love and affection could not
be produced by the appellant. The appellant could not even
provide his current address. It is evident that the appellant has
failed to discharge its onus. I hold the view that no cogent
material in support of the genuineness of the transaction was
palced before Assessing Officer or before me. Taking stock of
facts and circumstances of the case, I confirm the addition of
Rs.4,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer."
8. From the assessment order, it is also vivid that the Assessing Officer
made addition only on the basis of statement of donor Shri Gian Chan Jain and
by observing that the summon could not be served as no such person was
existing there and the assessee could not produce the donor. There is no
6
I.T.A. No. 805/Del/2011
Assessment year: 2002-03
inquiry or investigation by the Assessing Officer about the documents
submitted before him to support the genuineness of the transaction and identity,
creditworthiness and capacity of the donor. Hence, action and stand of the
Assessing Officer comes within the teeth of the order of Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi in the case of CIT vs Goel Sons (supra) wherein their lordships held as
follows:-
" 3. We have examined the said contention and find that the
assessee during the course of assessment proceedings has filed
confirmation letters from the companies, their PAN number, copy
of bank statements, affidavits and balance sheet. Thereafter the
Assessing Officer had asked the assessee to produce the said
Directors/ parties. Assessee expressed its inability to produce
them. The Assessing Officer did not consequent thereto conduct
any inquiry and closed the proceedings. This is a case where the
Assessing Officer has failed to conduct necessary inquiry,
verification and deal with the matter in depth specially after the
affidavit/confirmation along with the bank statements etc. were
filed. In case the Assessing Officer had conducted the said
enquiries and investigation probably the challenge made by the
Revenue would be justified. In the absence of these inquiries and
non- verification of the details at the time of assessment
proceedings, the factual findings recorded by the Assessing
Officer were incomplete and sparse. The impugned order passed
cannot be treated and regarded as perverse. The appeal is
dismissed as no substantial question of law arises."
9. The present case is squarely covered in favour of the assessee as in the
similar set of facts and circumstances, the Assessing Officer made addition
without any inquiry and non-verification of details submitted by the assessee
7
I.T.A. No. 805/Del/2011
Assessment year: 2002-03
during assessment proceedings and thus we are inclined to hold that the factual
finding recorded by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) were
incomplete and sparse which cannot be made basis of any valid disallowance or
addition and the same can safely be treated as perverse and infirm and thus we
set aside the same. The Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition.
10. In the result, appeal of the assessee on sole issue is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 09.12.2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
(S.V. MEHROTRA) (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
DT. 09th DECEMBER 2015
`GS'
Copy forwarded to:-
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. C.I.T.(A)
4. C.I.T. 5. DR By Order
Asstt.Registrar
8
|