IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
            CHANDIGARH BENCHES `B' CHANDIGARH


       BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
               SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER


                              ITA No. 29/Chd/2013
                             Assessment Year: 2008-09


Shri Ramesh Garg,                       Vs.         The AC IT, Circle 5(1),
Chandigarh                                          Chandigarh

PAN No. ABEPG3806F


(Appellant)                                                     (Respondent)

                    Appellant By              : Shri Prikshit Aggarwal
                    Respondent By             : Shri J.S.Nagar

                    Date of hearing       :     29/04/2014
                    Date of Pronouncement :     13.5.2014


                                     ORDER


Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member

      The     present   appeal   has been preferred by the assessee against the

order dated 29.11.2012 of Ld. C IT(A) Chandigarh relevant to assessment year

2008-09.



2.    Through the grounds of appeal, the assessee has agitated against the

confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 1,93,300/- claimed by the assessee as a

gift from his sister.








3.    The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had received Canadian

$ 5000 equivalent to Rs. 1,93,300/- in Indian currency from his nephew (son

of the sister) Mr. Sumit Gupta, resident of Canada.      The Assessing Officer

held that the nephew did not fall in the definition of relative as provided u/s

56(2)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. He treated the said receipt as income of the
                                                                               2



assessee.      The Ld. C IT(A) also confirmed the said disallowance. The

assessee is thus in appeal before us.



4.    We have heard the Ld. Representatives of both the parties.



5.    The Ld. Representative of the assessee has submitted that in fact the

said gift was made by the sister of the assessee. Her son had transferred the

money to the assessee on the asking of his mother (sister of the assessee). He

has vehementl y contended that the said gift was not from the nephew but from

the sister of the assessee who fall under the definition of the relative as

provided in section 56(2)(vi) of the Act. He has also relied on a certificate

issued by the sister of the assessee which has been placed at page 10 of the

paper book before us vide which she had confirmed that the gift was made by

her and she had directed her son to send the cheque of the above amount to

his brother.


6.    The Ld. DR has relied on the findings of the lower authorities.


7.    We have considered the rival submission of the Ld. Representatives of

both the parties.   It is an admitted fact that the amount in question had been

transferred through banking channel. There is no doubt about the identit y and

financial capacit y of the transferor of the amount. It is also an admitted fact

that the transfer of money was from the son of the sister of the assessee. The

sister of the assessee has given a written confirmation that the said money

was transferred through banking channel on her direction by her son to the

assessee. The amount involved in the dispute is also a nominal amount which

is not unusuall y high. It is in the normal course of relations that the mother

asks her son to do certain activities relating to financial matters also due to

old age or other related compulsions. Similarl y, in our societ y the son also

feels an obligation to respect and obey the orders of the mother. The amount

of gift being nominal and full y explained and also in view of the confirmation
                                                                               3








letter issued by the sister of the assessee that the money was in fact gifted by

her and the same was transferred in the account of the assessee by her son on

her directions, leaves no doubt that the gift was made by sister of the assessee

who falls within the definition of relative as provided u/s 56(2)(vi) of the

Act.


8.     In view of our above observation, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is

hereby set aside and the disallowance in question is ordered to be deleted.


9.     In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.


       Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 13.5.2014



               Sd/-                                      Sd/-
      (T.R. SOOD)                                     (SANJAY GARG)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated : 13 t h May, 2014
Rkk

Copy to:
  1.     The Appellant
  2.     The Respondent
  3.     The CIT
  4.     The CIT(A)
  5.     The DR