Suman Devi Khandelwal v. Income-tax Officer, Ward 4(2), Jaipur
[Citation -2017-LL-1025-14]

Citation 2017-LL-1025-14
Appellant Name Suman Devi Khandelwal
Respondent Name Income-tax Officer, Ward 4(2), Jaipur
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 25/10/2017
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction • unexplained cash credit • household expenditure • unaccounted income • deemed income • personal use • primary onus
Bot Summary: Since we are concerned with the issue of gifts only the facts in this behalf are that the assessee received the following gifts as observed by the AO:- Sh. Pramod Garg Rs.3.00 lacs Sh. Vinod Garg Rs.2.00 lacs Smt. Babita Rs.1.25 lacs Smt. Varsha Badaya Rs.3.00 lacs 3.1 The AO asked the assessee to prove the relationship with the donors, genuineness of the gifts and creditworthiness of the donors. The gifts were received during the accounting period 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2004 whereas all the gift deeds were prepared in the month of August 2006 i.e., after purchase of franking stamp paper and when the assessee failed to file the gift deeds during the course of assessment proceedings. Not being satisfied with the various explanations given by the assessee and doubting the genuineness of the transaction and the capacity of the donor to give the gifts, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire gift of Rs.2,74,000 as income from undisclosed sources U/s.68 of the Act. Since during the year the assessee has merely converted the loans into gifts through book entries, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) holding that the said gifts were already credited in the books of the assessee in the earlier assessment year in the form of loans and as such could not be treated as unexplained during the year under consideration. 68.All the donors appeared before the Department, submitted material including affidavits on oath, confirms the gifts made, established their old relations with the assessee and proved their capacity to make the gifts. In our view, when the assessee has produced the copies of the gift deeds and the affidavits of the donors, in the absence of anything to show, that the act of the assessee in claiming gift, was an act by way of money laundering, simply because he happens to receive gifts, it cannot be said ITA-31/2015 that, that is required to be added in his income. 6.6 In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. R.S. Sibal 269 ITR 429, it has been held as under:- There is no quarrel with the proposition that a mere identification of the donor and movement of the gift amount through banking channels is not sufficient to prove the genuineness of the gift and since the claim of the amount having been received as a gift is made by the assessed, onus lies on him not only to establish the identity of the donor but his capacity to make such a gift.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 31 / 2015 Smt. Suman Devi Khandelwal W/o Sh. Ashok Khandelwal, aged 57 years, R/o 2/187, New Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2), Jaipur having its address at New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka with Mr. Muzaffar Iqbal For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.D. Mathur with Mr. Prabhansh Sharma for Mr. R.B. Mathur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS Judgment 25/10/2017 1. By way of this appeal, appellant has assailed judgment and order of tribunal whereby tribunal has allowed appeal filed by department and reversed view taken by CIT(A) and confirmed order of AO. 2. This court while admitting appeal on 7.10.2016 framed following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether facts and material available on record learned ITAT was justified in holding that addition of Rs.9,25,000/- made by AO on account of unexplained gift was correct and proper? 2. Whether learned ITAT was justified in relying too heavily on human improbabilities and circumstantial evidence by ignoring requirement of Section 68 of Act? (2 of 19) [ITA-31/2015] 3. facts of case are that assessee is proprietress of business dealing in cotton cloth manufacturing and manufacture of Refined Lubricants Oil. During course of assessment proceedings, various additions have been made including impugned gifts. Since we are concerned with issue of gifts only, therefore, facts in this behalf are that assessee received following gifts as observed by AO:- (i) Sh. Pramod Garg Rs.3.00 lacs (ii) Sh. Vinod Garg Rs.2.00 lacs (iii) Smt. Babita Rs.1.25 lacs (iv) Smt. Varsha Badaya Rs.3.00 lacs 3.1 AO asked assessee to prove relationship with donors, genuineness of gifts and creditworthiness of donors. assessee vide letter dt. 17.9.2003 replied that Smt. Varsha Badaya was niece of assessee and remaining donors were children of Accountant working with assessee which were claimed to be Dharam Bhai and Dharam Bhai of assessee. assessee filed copies of bank accounts, confirmation of gifts and income tax record. AO found that bank accounts reflected that gifts were immediately preceded by depositing amount in donors respective accounts. 3.2 AO asked assessee to produce donors and prove their creditworthiness. donors were produced who confirmed giving of gifts and their statements were also recorded. According to AO, there were contradiction in statements of (3 of 19) [ITA-31/2015] donors vis-a-vis transactions of gifts claimed by assessee. 4. Counsel for appellant contended that tribunal has committed serious error in reversing view taken by CIT(A) who observed as under:- 5.1 I have duly considered submissions of appellant. I find that in present case, donors were creditors in earlier years and loans received from them were accepted as genuine. In year under reference, loans to creditors were returned and then accepted as gifts. Since donors were assessed to tax and loans accepted from them in earlier years were accepted as genuine, therefore their identity was not in doubt. donors had appeared in person before AO also. Hence their existence was not in doubt. fact that loans were returned and these very amounts were accepted as gifts could well be reason to accept creditworthiness of donors. Further gifts were received through banking channels and it established genuineness of transactions in question. initial loan transactions between assessee and these lenders had creation of contractual relation between them and, therefore, there was consideration of performance of mutual promise and consequently, these transactions were not without consideration. repayment obligation of assessee by itself was consideration for granting of loan. transaction of loan implied agreement to repay money. intention to repay loan was established by disclosure of loans in balance-sheet supported by loans confirmations submitted by assessee in earlier years. Therefore these transactions were with consideration and met all requirements of general law under section 68 of I.T. Act. Department had raised alternate contention that these could not be brought back in books of account as gifts however it was feeble contention. This contention was also liable (4 of 19) [ITA-31/2015] to be rejected as there was relationship between appellant and donors however AO had chosen to ignore same. AO had chosen to ignore same. AO had merely doubted nature of transaction for reason that these were converted from loans into gifts and there were now no repayment obligations. However, this conclusion had been arrived merely on basis of surmises and conjectures ignoring financial status of donors and their association with assessee and except for general suspicion, no other material had been brought on record which could really support assumption of AO as regards financial status of donors. In case of Smt. Babita Ahir, loans of Rs 1,06,986/- were returned by appellant, Khandelwal Chemicals and same were credited in her bank account on 12.02.01. Prior to deposit of cheque, she had closing balance of Rs.46,523/- in her bank account. There were no cash deposits in her bank account. She gave gift of Rs.1,25,000/- to appellant on 26.02.01. In case of Smt. Varsha Badaya, loan of Rs. 2,93,641/- was returned by appellant and same was credited in her bank account on 12.1.01. Prior to deposit of cheque, she had closing balance of Rs 8000/- in her bank account. She gave gift of Rs. 3,00,000/- to appellant on 17.1.01. In case of Sh. Vinod Garg, loans of Rs 1,57,238/- were returned by appellant, Khandelwal Chemicals, Tirupati Industries and same were credited in his bank account on 23.02.01. Prior to deposit of cheque, he had closing balance of Rs. 79,179/- in his bank account. There were no cash deposits in his bank account. He gave gift of Rs 2,00,000/- to appellant on 1.3.01. In case of Sh Pramod Garg, loan of Rs 2,00,600/- was returned by appellant and same was credited in his bank account on 22.02.01. Prior to deposit of cheque, he had closing balance of Rs 2,15,814/- in his bank account. There were no cash deposits in his bank account. He gave gift of Rs 3,00,000/- to appellant on 26.02.01. AO had therefore unnecessarily overemphasized fact of creditworthiness. observations of AO as regards sources of income of (5 of 19) [ITA-31/2015] donors, their household expenditure, occasion of gift, intimacy with donee and registration of gift deeds were not conclusive. Before AO, in response to question number 16, Smt Babita Ahir, Sh Pramod Garg and Sh Vinod Garg had categorically accepted that appellant was their aunt (Chachi). Smt Varsha Badaya had categorically accepted in response to question number 16 that appellant was her aunt (bua). Hence, contention of assessee has to be accepted that expressed terms and conditions of gifts could not be given different colour without bringing any material on record to support such stand. In case of ITO Vs Ramesh Vora (2010- TIOL-650-ITAT-Mumbai), assessee had received loans from nine parties in preceding years which were reflected in Balance Sheet. assessee furnished photocopies of bank statement, income-tax acknowledgement, balance sheet, capital account as well as computation of total income in respect of above persons to support loans taken from parties in previous year. It was explained that on 2nd April, 2003 some of parties had expressed their willingness to gift these amounts and gifted sum of Rs.2,74,000 to assessee. However, Assessing Officer was not satisfied with explanation given by assessee. He noted that gift deeds filed by assessee suffered from serious manipulations. gifts were received during accounting period 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2004 whereas all gift deeds were prepared in month of August 2006 i.e., after purchase of franking stamp paper and when assessee failed to file gift deeds during course of assessment proceedings. gifts were given by foregoing loan liability. gift transaction was arranged by assessee from his distant relatives and family member in cash and cheques through circulating transaction. gifts were not taken actually but routed through book adjustments. returns of income filed by donor showed income much below taxable limit and none of them had capacity to give gift. gift deeds filed did not bear date of acceptance by (6 of 19) [ITA-31/2015] assessee. Further assessee had not given any gifts but he was only receiving gifts from his clients. assessing officer thereafter discussed individual gift items. Not being satisfied with various explanations given by assessee and doubting genuineness of transaction and capacity of donor to give gifts, Assessing Officer disallowed entire gift of Rs.2,74,000 as income from undisclosed sources U/s.68 of Act. Before CIT(A), it was submitted that assessee had discharged initial and primary onus of establishing and substantiating identity, capacity and genuineness of donors by producing positive, direct, overriding and unexceptionable material and evidences such as gift deed, PAN, address of donors, copy of bank passbook of donors as well as donee and copies of income-tax return, balance sheet and other details of donor during course of assessment proceedings. Based on arguments advanced by assessee, CIT(A) deleted gifts from 7 donors amounting to Rs.2,38,000. However, he confirmed addition of gift of Rs.18,000 received from Mr. Vijay Bhayani and Rs.18,000 from Ms. Forum Vora. While doing so he noted that as far as first 7 donors were concerned, observations and findings of Assessing Officer were too general to be accepted without any cogent piece of evidence. assessee had been able to bring on record all relevant evidences which had not been refuted by Assessing Officer in forceful manner. Further said gifts were already credited in books of assessee in earlier assessment year in form of loans and as such could not be treated as unexplained during yar under consideration. Since assessee had produced evidences to show that all persons concerned were duly identified income tax payers in their own right and had necessary creditworthiness for advancing funds to assessee, it was enough to discharge initial onus on assessee. There was no basis with Assessing Officer to conclude that amounts received by way of loans represented unaccounted income of (7 of 19) [ITA-31/2015] assessee and did not belong to respective persons. Therefore, very basis for making addition in impugned assessment year lacked any substance. CIT(A) accordingly deleted gifts received amounting to Rs.2,38,000 from seven persons. However, as regards gift received from Vijay Bhayani and Ms. Forum Vora, he rejected contention of assessee on ground that both of them were not assessed to income-tax nor had any ostensible source of income to establish their creditworthiness as affidavits filed showed that said gifts were given out of past savings which remained unsubstantiated. In such situation, creditworthiness as well as genuineness of said gifts could not be proved by assessee. Before Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal, it was argued that there was no relationship between donors and donee and there was no occasion for giving or receiving gifts. Referring to various gift deeds placed, it was argued that stamp papers were purchased from Kapol Co-operative Bank Ltd. On same date and at same time. Further contents of each of gift deed were identical. Therefore when six different persons who were not related to each other and not related to assessee went to same bank and purchased stamp papers at same time only inference that could be drawn was that documents were mere self serving documents. counsel for assessee, on other hand, submitted that gifts were already credited in preceding year as loans. Therefore, even assuming that gifts were not as per law even then also it could not be added. Referring to decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT Vs. Padam Singh Chouhan (315 ITR 433) it was argued that for accepting gift, blood relation was not required for donor for giving gift and natural love and affection was sufficient. It was argued that in instant case loan was already lying with assessee. book adjustment was already made and it was constructed delivery. observations of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal are reproduced as under: (8 of 19) [ITA-31/2015] "We have considered rival submissions made by both sides, perused orders of Assessing Officer and CIT(A) and Paper Book filed on behalf of assessee. We have also considered various decisions cited before us. There is no dispute to fact that assessee, who is chartered accountant by profession, has credited amount of Rs.2,74,000/- to capital account being gifts received during year. There is also no dispute to fact that out of above Rs.2,74,000/- amount of Rs.2,38,000/- was received as loan in preceding assessment year and only Rs.36,000 was received during year from Mr. Vijay Bhayani and Ms. Forum Vora. We find Assessing Officer added entire amount of Rs.2,74,000/- on ground that assessee was unable to prove genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of donor. We find CIT(A) deleted addition of Rs.2,38,000/- out of Rs.2,74,000/- made by Assessing Officer on ground that assessee has discharged primary onus and Assessing Officer has not been able to refute evidences in forceful manner and that all gifts were already credited in books of assessee in earlier assessment year in form of loan and as such could not be treated as unexplained cash credit during year under consideration. We do not find any infirmity in observations of learned CIT(A). Admittedly amount of Rs.2,38,000 was received by assessee from 7 persons as loan in preceding assessment year and these were transferred to gifts only during relevant assessment year through book entries. It is clear that addition can be made U/s. 68 of Act where any sum is found credited in books of assessee maintained for any previous year and assessee offers no explanation about nature and source thereof or explanation offered by him is not satisfactory in opinion of Assessing Officer. In instant case amount of Rs.2,38,000 was already credited in books of account by way of loans in preceding assessment year. Therefore, addition if any could have been made only during assessment year in (9 of 19) [ITA-31/2015] which assessee has accepted loan. Since during year assessee has merely converted loans into gifts through book entries, we, therefore, do not find any infirmity in order of CIT(A) holding that said gifts were already credited in books of assessee in earlier assessment year in form of loans and as such could not be treated as unexplained during year under consideration. In this view of matter and in view of detailed order passed by CIT(A) on this issue, we do not find any infirmity in his order deleting addition. ground raised by Revenue is accordingly dismissed". Respectfully following above decision and facts of present case, I direct AO to delete addition of Rs.9,25,000/- made on account of unexplained gifts since appellant had submitted sufficient documentary evidences to discharge onus that lay on her. addition made by AO on account of hypothetical observations could not be sustained. Accordingly this ground of appeal is allowed. 5. He further contended that CIT(A) after considering evidence on record rightly decided issue in favour of assessee. tribunal while deciding matter has gone on different point and has wrongly reversed finding given by CIT(A). 6. Counsel for appellant has relied upon following decisions:- 6.1 In Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana vs. Jawahar Lal Oswal reported in (2016) 67 168 (Punjab & Haryana), it has been held as under:- (10 of 19) [ITA-31/2015] 25.A question may, however, legitimately arise that such large amount could not be given as gift on marriage of assessee's daughter but this question is speculative and cannot form basis for raising inference against assessee. Assessing Officer was apparently over-awed by amount of gift and, therefore, proceeded to base his opinion on his perception that no one would gift such large amount. deeming provision requires Assessing Officer to collect relevant facts and then confront assessee, who is thereafter, required to explain incriminating facts and in case he fails to proffer credible information, Assessing Officer may validly raise inference of deemed income under section 69-A of Act. As already held, If assessee proffers explanation and discloses all relevant facts within his knowledge, onus reverts to revenue to adduce evidence and only thereafter, may inference be raised, based upon relevant facts, by invoking deeming provisions of Section 69-A of Act. It is true that inferences and presumptions are integral to adjudicatory process but cannot by themselves be raised to status of substantial KUMAR VIRENDER 2016.02.17 14:46 I attest to accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh evidence or evidence sufficient to raise inference. deeming provision, thus, enables revenue to raise inference against assessee on basis of tangible material and not on mere suspicion, conjectures or perceptions. It would also be necessary to reiterate that it is not perceptions but concrete facts that underline quasi judicial determinations and where concrete facts are not available, relevant facts, as would raise credible inference of culpability requiring assessee to rebut inference so raised. More often than not, revenue authorities, for want of relevant material, institute "inquisitions", as opposed to inquiries and by addressing questions that more inculpatory in nature, seek to build their case, from answers proffered by assessee. 6.2 In Prahlad Bhattacharya vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-XVI, it has been held as under:- (11 of 19) [ITA-31/2015] 13.The learned Tribunal in coming to its own conclusion should not only consider every matter on record having bearing on questions of fact and reasons given by CIT(A) in support of order of deletion but should also express reasons to hold that deletion was not justified. 14.In this case learned Tribunal has gone on to reject entire evidence on record by merely making bald statement that Before Cl'T(A), there was not even iota of evidence that gifts were genuine.... From order of CIT(A) quoted above, it is evident that each donor had offered explanation supported by documentary evidence. Furthermore donor cannot be expected to disclose or answer any question which was not specifically put to him in course of proceedings u/s.131. inspector deputed by assessing officer had full opportunity to make inquiry and assessee should not suffer on account of lapse on part of inspector. 15. It is no doubt true that in appeal against order of CIT(A) Tribunal being final fact finding authority has full power to review evidence and to reach its own independent conclusion. Nevertheless while reversing order of CIT(A) Tribunal is duty bound to examine and discuss reasons given by CIT(A) to hold one way or other and then to dispel those reasons. If Tribunal fails to make such exercise judgment will suffer from serious infirmity. We are supported in our view by following judgments of Supreme Court. In Padma Uppal v. State of Punjab, reported in (1977) 1 SCC 330 wherein Apex Court while discussing scope of appellate power held as follows:- Moreover, there is prudent condition to which appellate power, generally speaking is subject. Court of appeal interferes not when judgment under attack is not right but only when it is shown to be wrong. (See Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore v. T. Adinarayan Setty [ 1959 Supp 1 SCR 404 : AIR 1959 SC 429 : 1959 Cri LJ 526] ; Dattatraya Shankarbhat Ambalgi v.Collector of Sholapur [( 1971) 3 SCC 43] and Dollar Company, Madras v. Collector of Madras [( 1975) 2 SCC 730] .) (12 of 19) [ITA-31/2015] 16.The Supreme Court in S.V.R. Mudaliar v. Rajabu F. Buhari, reported in ( 1995) 4 SCC 15 held as follows:- we have no doubt in our mind that before reversing finding of fact, appellate court has to bear in mind reasons ascribed by trial court. This view of ours finds support from what was stated by Privy Council in Rani Hemanta Kumari Debi v. Maharaja Jagadindra Nath Roy Bahadur [ 10 CWN 630 : 8 Bom LR 400] wherein, while regarding appellate judgment of High Court of Judicature at Fort William as careful and able, it was stated that it did not come to close quarters with judgment which it reviews, and indeed never discusses or even alludes to reasoning of Subordinate Judge. 17.We are thus clearly of opinion that Tribunal fell into error in interfering with order of CIT(A) without first dislodging reasons given by him. Assuming that another view was possible, that itself would be no ground to interfere with order of CIT(A) unless it is shown that appreciation of evidence by CIT(A) was either perverse or untenable and that in holding in favour of assessee CIT(A) either ignored material evidence or that view taken by him was patently untenable. 6.3 In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ms. Mayawati reported in (2011) 338 ITR 563 (Delhi), it has been held as under:- 62.Further in case of Mrs.Veena Jain, details of assets proved on record show that total assets of Mrs. Veena Jain were of Rs.1.34 crores & liabilities were only of Rs.2.11 lacs. We have perused assets owned by Mrs.Veena Jain and found that she had capacity to borrow first, and then to gift as per her desire. capacity does not mean what you are earning monthly or annually. capacity includes how much total assets person own. So is case of Mrs.Veena Jain here, she had asset of Rs.1.34 crores, definitely could borrow Rs.20 or 25 lacs easily. Second plea regarding (13 of 19) [ITA-31/2015] Mrs.Veena Jain is that if person buys any property for her personal use, she will definitely not make gift for same. Here on perusal of record it is revealed that she has stated before Department that assessee is Rakhi sister of her husband and she is great admirer of assessee because she is working for upliftment of down trodden and poor persons of society. Sometimes person does not have to be related to particular trust or charitable institution, but in their view that trust or institution is doing great service to particular section of society. Therefore, we do not find any force in arguments advanced by learned counsel for Revenue. Further, it is also not necessary that person should be habitual donor. It depends from person to person, thinking to thinking and situation to situation. Sometimes person keeps donating throughout their life and sometimes he donates once and sometimes during last stage of his life. Therefore, we do not agree with arguments advanced by learned counsel for Revenue. 68.All donors appeared before Department, submitted material including affidavits on oath, confirms gifts made, established their old relations with assessee and proved their capacity to make gifts. We have noted that in earlier years also they had made gifts to assessee and her family members, which were accepted by Revenue. We have also noted that two gifts made by Sh.Ajay Aggarwal and Sh.O.P.Khadaria, Advocate were of Rs.10 lacs and Rs.1 lac respectively have been accepted by Department. donors are persons of sufficient means. assessee has fully discharged her legal obligations by disclosing identity of all donors. Further, donors have proved their genuineness and capacity to make gift. All assessee as well as donors had appeared before Registrar and gifts are duly registered. All gifts are absolute and without any lien of anyone. There is no evidence on record to prove that assessee has favoured donor in any manner whatsoever by acquiring gifts in question. capacity of any person does not mean how much they earn monthly or annually, but term capacity has vided (14 of 19) [ITA-31/2015] term and that can be perceived by how wealthy he is. All formalities, as per law are met by assessee and donors as well. All donors have admitted that they are great admirer of assessee as she is working for upliftment of poor people. 6.4 In Commissioner of Income Tax VI vs. Bhanwarlal Sharma Tax Appeal No.713/2012 decided on 21.2.2013, it has been held as under:- 11. In instant case, as can be noted from findings of Tribunal, Assessing Officer had not summoned any of donors. However, it had issued letters under section 133(6) of Act. Assessing Officer had also called for confirmation letters which were received by it. assessee also had furnished all other requisite documents like copies of DD, gift deed, copy of PAN cards, copy of acknowledgment of returns of donors along with computation and balance sheet. It also found that all donors were assessed to tax except one who was based at USA. On thus having found identity of donors so also creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction having been established, Tribunal did not accept say of Revenue that gifts were bogus. 12. Tribunal also relied on decision of this Court rendered in case of Muralidhar Lahorimal v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (2006) 280 ITR 512(Guj.). In said decision also identity of donor had been established beyond any semblance of doubt and genuineness of transaction was also established not only by receipt of bank draft but also by other contemporaneous record. Revenue although in that case also was not satisfied with source of fund in hands of donor and yet, Court held it was for Revenue to take appropriate steps in that event, but, that would not lead to question genuineness of transaction. We find that case of assessee respondent in matter on hand can be largely equated with one decided by this Court in case of (15 of 19) [ITA-31/2015] Muralidhar Lahorimal(supra). However, those decisions relied upon by Revenue discussed hereinabove have materially and substantially different factual aspects. 14. We are conscious that various aspects discussed by both Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were causing concern to those authorities. Gifts to assessee by 24 different unrelated persons, residing at different places in Mumbai on same day, with draft of huge sum from same bank and deposit within span of 2 to 3 days would raise eyebrows. Their non reply of letter under section 133(6) and non appearance of assessee personally may further strengthen such suspicion coupled with difference in economic strata of assessee and that of these persons. Yet, these questions do not cross realm of suspicion to enter sphere of proof, let alone arena of convincing evidence. Tribunal could with aid of cogent reasonings convince us why such material proof was sufficient to accept version of assessee and uphold his request to delete addition of entire amount from computation of his income. 6.5 In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Padam Singh Chouhan reported in (2009) 315 ITR 433 (Rajasthan), it has been held as under:- 4. In our view, there is no legal basis to assume, that to recognize gift to be genuine, there should be any blood relationship, or any close relationship, between donor and donee. Instances are not rare, when even strangers make gifts, out of very many considerations, including arising out of love, affection and sentiments. 5. In our view, when assessee has produced copies of gift deeds and affidavits of donors, in absence of anything to show, that act of assessee in claiming gift, was act by way of money laundering, simply because he happens to receive gifts, it cannot be said (16 of 19) [ITA-31/2015] that, that is required to be added in his income. 6.6 In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. R.S. Sibal (2004) 269 ITR 429 (Delhi), it has been held as under:- There is no quarrel with proposition that mere identification of donor and movement of gift amount through banking channels is not sufficient to prove genuineness of gift and since claim of amount having been received as gift is made by assessed, onus lies on him not only to establish identity of donor but his capacity to make such gift. But in instant case, we find from record that though assessed had admittedly produced bank statements, Assessing Officer did not raise any query with regard to capacity of donors to make gift. From assessment order, we find that only ground on which genuineness of gifts had been doubted was alleged failure on part of assessed to establish his relationship with donors. Admittedly, there is no blood relationship between assessed and donors. No such case was even pleaded by assessed. donors had stated in their declarations that they had gifted amounts to assessed on account of their love and affections for him. Both lower appellate authorities have recorded categorical finding that by producing afore-mentioned documents assessed has discharged onus which lay on him with regard to genuineness of gifts. inference drawn by appellate authorities, on appreciation of evidence is factual, giving rise to no question of law much less substantial question of law. 7. Counsel for respondent contended that AO as well as tribunal rightly decided issue. (17 of 19) [ITA-31/2015] 8. tribunal while considering matter observed as under:- 2.9 AO asked donors to furnish supportive corroborative evidences to prove their creditworthiness regarding having kept money with them. donors promised to furnish same, however AO at page 8 in para O of his order has given finding of fact that till last date of hearing no such evidence was produced either by donors or by assessee. Smt. Babita Ahir deposed that her family was entirely dependent on assessee. This proves fact that actually interest amount earned from said deposit was major source of income to support her family. It was quite incongruous that when her family is entirely dependent on her interest income whey they gifted away such huge amount of her capital to assessee which was against normal human conduct. assessee and Smt. Babita Ahir both claimed to know each other very well but Smt. Babita Ahir could not give details of residential address of assessee donee. Further more, she stated that assessee is housewife where fact of matter and statement of assessee is to effect that she is business-woman and proprietress of concerns. This demonstrates that there was total contradiction in statements between donor and donee and their claims about mutual relationships were found to be nonexistent. 2.12 Aggrieved, Revenue is before us. Ld. DR vehemently argued that it is peculiar case of reverse gifts where donee is very rich person and donors are poor persons. three donors are children of donee s Accountant and one claims to be distant niece of donee. AO by demonstrative observation has demolished claim of warm relationship as claimed by donors and assessee. donors have never been able to tell exact address of assessee. Though donee is business woman yet same donee claims that she is housewife. In normal circumstances, (18 of 19) [ITA-31/2015] assessee being rich lady ought to have provided gift to her niece and other persons out of natural love and affection whereas there is strange situation in this case inasmuch as poor persons are giving huge amounts of gifts to rich person which practically wipes out their earning source. It is ironical that money was not lying idle with donors, they were earning interest thereon and utilizing earned interest towards meeting out their house hold expenses and taking care of their families which they claimed to be dependent on them. These facts, circumstances of improbabilities, human prudence and probabilities that middle class person will sacrifice not only income but also their respective capital by making impugned gifts to rich person more so when they do not have any proven ostensible relationship. paper trail has been created to give camouflage or fa ade to transaction to somehow give impression of genuineness to dubious gift transactions. 9. Counsel for respondent has relied upon decision of Gujarat High Court in Laxmandas Sujandas Dalpat vs. Income Tax officer reported in (2016) 381 ITR 283 (Guj.) wherein it has been held as under:- 7.4 In conclusion, it was submitted that thus, firstly burden of establishing source of donor lies on assessee, which assessee has failed to prove; secondly assessee has failed to prove relationship of natural love and affection between donor and donee, and thirdly, gift far exceeds returned income, under circumstances, Tribunal was wholly justified in reversing order passed by Assessing Officer. It was, accordingly, urged that no question of law is involved in facts of present case and that entire matter is in realm of facts. (19 of 19) [ITA-31/2015] 10. He also relied upon decision of this court in Smt. Anju Samariya vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur Tax Appeal No.635/2009 decided on 21.8.2017. 11. We have heard counsel for parties. 12. It is fit case where tribunal has rightly taken view that no person will take gift from man who has no money and held gifts to be non-genuine and taxed as income. 13. In that view of matter, reasoning adopted by tribunal is just and proper. issues are answered in favour of department and against assessee. 14. appeal stands dismissed. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS)J. (K.S. JHAVERI)J. Brijesh 75. Suman Devi Khandelwal v. Income-tax Officer, Ward 4(2), Jaipur
Report Error