COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNAL Vs. KAMLESH RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this order, we shall dispose of ITA Nos. 255, 250, 252, 256 and 497 of 2005 and ITA No. 354 of 2006 as they involve adjudication of the same questions of law. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from ITA No. 255 of 2005. The revenue has preferred this appeal, under Section 260A of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act), against order dated 23.8.2004, passed by the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi for the assessment year 1994 -95, whereby orders passed by the C.I.T. (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer have been reversed.

(2.) THE Assessing Officer passed an order holding that the gift received by Kamlesh Rani respondent from the N.R.E. account of one Sanjeev Gupta was bogus and, therefore, added Rs. 2,22,000/ - as undisclosed income. The assessee filed an appeal before the C.I.T. (Appeals) which was dismissed on 18 -11 -2003. Aggrieved by these orders, the assessee filed an appeal. The Income -tax Appellate Tribunal deleted the addition by holding that Assessing Officer has failed to discharge the burden of proving that the gift is not genuine. The appeal was admitted on the following questions of law: - -

(3.) WE have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned and as it is admitted by counsel for the assessee that the questions of law framed in these appeals have been answered in favour of the revenue, in Puneet Chugh's case (supra) find no reason to accept the argument raised by Counsel for the assessee. It would be appropriate to point out that the donee addressed a letter to the Department, not only denying the gift but also stating that he did not open the account from which the gift was made to the private respondent. Consequently, the appeals are allowed, the questions of law are answered in favour of the revenue in terms of judgment in ITA No. 498 of 2005 and order dated 23 -8 -2004, passed by the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi is set aside.