CIT Vs. SH RAM DEV KUMAR CHITLANGIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the revenue, is against the judgment of learned Tribunal dated 09.01.2004. By the said judgment, the learned Tribunal decided four appeals; two by the assessee, and two by the revenue, relating to assessment years 1994 -95 and 1995 -96. Out of them, the present appeal relates to Appeal No. 372, decided by the learned Tribunal, being appeal by the revenue, relating to the assessment year 1995 -96. This appeal was admitted vide order dated 23.05.2006, by framing following substantial questions of law:

(2.) THE necessary facts are, that the case of the assessee was, that a notice under Sec.142 was issued alleging, that a bogus gift of Rs. 1,51,000 in NRI Account was received in the name of assessee's minor son, and there were other bogus gifts from four persons, being Smt.Godavari Devi, Ravi Kumar, Yogesh Kumar and Pradeep Kumar. Other aspects of the notice, we need to go into, as they are not involved before us. The Assessing Officer made addition with respect to these gifts, finding them to be not genuine, and added as income from undisclosed sources.

(3.) THE learned Tribunal, in the appeal, discussing the gift of Rs. 1,51,000 found, that in the instant case, it is not disputed that the donor is an NRI, and a man of means, because the AO has not questioned his credit worthiness. It is also found not in dispute, that the amount was received by the minor son of the assessee from NRE account of the donor, ofcourse it was found true, that no deposits were made in the NRE account, except realization from foreign country i.e., and that only foreign exchange can be deposited in NRE Account, and there is nothing to show, that the assessee received the money back, after giving cheque to his minor son, and thus the AO was found to be not justified in finding the gift as an arranged gift. Then the consideration of reciprocity, also was negated, as gift is made without any consideration, and under natural love and affection. Various other judgments were also considered in this regard, and followed. Then, discussing the gift of Rs. 1,20,000, again, it was found, that donors were assessed to income tax, their identity was not in doubt, although all of them were having financial capacity to give gifts, transactions were through banking channel, thus, it was found, that AO has made additions merely, on the basis of presumption and assumptions, which is not tenable, as the requirement of law was, only to prove the identity, and credit worthiness, and genuineness, of the transactions, which were found to be duly proved by the assessee.