USHA RANI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of ITA Nos. 571 and 574 of 2006.

(2.) FACTS are being referred from ITA No. 571 of 2006. The assessee appellant has approached this Court by filing aforementioned appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961, claiming that the following substantial questions of law would 569/Chd/2005, in respect of asst. yr. 1995 -96 :

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length and find that none of the aforementioned questions of law would arise for our determination because, firstly, it is found from a perusal of orders on record that reasons were recorded by the competent authority for initiation of proceedings under s. 148 of the Act. The sufficiency thereof cannot be gone into by this Court. It could not be successfully agreed that the reasons did not have any nexus with the material available with AO. The authorities below have disbelieved receipt of gifts claimed by the assessee appellant from Jaswinder Singh, Bharpur Singh, Major Singh, Maghar Singh and Manjit Singh. There is nothing on record to show relationship between the donor and the donee, capacity of the donor to make gifts, and the occasion therefor. The assessee had failed to discharge the heavy onus. The Tribunal has opined that it is against the human probability that a stranger is claimed to have made gifts when admittedly most of the close relatives do not make any such huge gifts even if they are well off.