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
|
