Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi vs Ms.Mayawati on 3 August, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 29th October, 2010
Judgment Pronounced on: 03rd August, 2011
+ ITA No.438/2008
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Vivek K. Tankha, ASG with
Mr.Rishabh Sancheti and
Mr.Sumeer Sodhi, Advocates
versus
Ms.MAYAWATI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.S.C.Mishra, Sr.Advocate with
Dr.Rakesh Gupta, Mr.Shail Divedi,
Mr.Ashok Chhabra, Mr.Kunal Varma,
Mr.Ashwani Taneja and Mr.Johnson
Bara, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment? Yes.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest? Yes.
SURESH KAIT, J.
The present appeal is preferred by the Revenue/Department
against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench)
dated 30.11.2007. The facts of the instant appeal are as under:-
The Income Tax return for the Assessment Year 2003-
04 was filed by the assessee on 06.08.2003 declaring total income
of Rs.13,29,090/-. The Assessee enjoys the income from salary,
house property and other sources.
The Assessing Officer, on perusal of the return, found that
during the year under consideration, the assessee had received gifts
from the following persons as per details given hereunder:-
Srl. Doner‟s Name & Amount Cheque Date Bank
No. Address (Rs.) No.
1 Mr.Pankaj Jain 2,00,000 171816 07.12.2002 Andhra
R/o KD-5, Kavi Bank,
Nagar, Navyug
Ghaziabad Market,
Ghaziabad
2 Sh.Ajay 10,00,000 921359 07.12.2002 PNB,
Agarwal, R/o G.T.Road,
KF-21, Kavi Ghaziabad
Nagar,
Ghaziabad
3 Sh.O.P.Khadaria, 1,00,000 592985 15.01.2003 State Bank
R/o B1-D, DDA of India,
Flats, SFS Gulabi University
Bagh, Delhi Branch,
Delhi
DETAILS OF IMMOVABLE ASSETS RECEIVED
Srl. No. Doner‟s Details of Date Value
Name & property (Rs.) as
Address per Gift
Deed
1 Smt.Veena C-58, 16.11.2002 2203850
Jain R/o Inderpuri,
KD-5, New
Kavi Delhi
Nagar,
Ghaziabad
2 Sh.Ashok C-57, 26.12.2002 4068450
Kumar Inderpuri,
Jain, R/o New
KD-5, Delhi
Kavi
Nagar,
Ghaziabad
Sh.Ashok Jain and Smt.Veena are husband and wife and
Sh.Pankaj is nephew of Sh.Ashok Jain. Sh.Ashok Jain is a
professional Advocate and Sh.Pankaj is a practicing Chartered
Accountant and a partner of M/s P.Jain & Co.
We may mention here itself that the Assessee and her family
members have received gifts from different persons at different
times and these gifts have become subject matter of the scrutiny at
various levels including Income Tax Department and additions
have been made at the ends of the assessee and her family
members in different assessment years. However, so far as the
present appeal is concerned, we are concerned only with the
aforesaid gifts which Assessing Officer noticed during the year under
consideration. Therefore, for the purpose of present appeal, our
discussion would confine to these gifts only. We may also clarify
that we have gone into the facts as well as material on record
pertaining to this aspect only without being influenced by the other
gifts purportedly received by the assessee as that is not the scope
and domain of the present proceedings. With these introductory
remarks we revert back to the issue at hand.
The Assessing Officer wanted to examine the genuineness of
the aforesaid gifts. For this purpose he summoned the donors. He
recorded the statement of Mrs.Veena Jain on 26.12.2004.
From the statement of Mrs.Veena Jain, the Assessing Officer
brought out the following facts:-
1. She is Graduate.
2. The sources of income are rental, salary, interest, dividend,
sale purchase of shares.
3. She is filing her income tax return since 1979 and the
details of income declared by her is given hereunder:-
A.Y. Gross Net
2000-01 1,39,910/- 95,330/-
2001-02 1,35,920/- 98,720/-
2002-03 2,10,658/- 1,82,410/-
4. She does not pay wealth tax.
5. She is not a director, partner or proprietor in any
company or firm or concern.
6. She has never gifted any amount to any social
organization, temples and other religious organizations.
7. The gift is stated to be out of natural love and affection.
8. There is no correspondence with the donee and it is out of
personal meetings as well as telephonic discussion.
9. The done has never gifted any amount to Smt.Veena Jain,
the donor.
10. She has never received or given any gift in the past.
The Assessing Officer recorded his observation on the
creditworthiness, it is seen that she herself had taken loan for
purchase of property as she was not having sufficient funds for this
purpose. She had sold her jewellery for purchase of the house.
Therefore, he opined that the creditworthiness of the donor was
not proved.
Summons under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act was issued
to Sh.Ashok Jain. In compliance, Sh.Ashok Jain, Advocate
appeared before the Assessing Officer and his statement was
recorded by him from which the following facts were revealed:-
1. His sources of income are Tax Consultancy, Salary,
dividend, interest, shares, sale and purchase and share
income from M/s Bharat Associates, Ghaziabad.
2. He is filing his income tax return since 1971.
3. The details of income declared during the last three years
is given as
A.Y. Gross Net
2000-01 3,12,000/- 2,77,630/-
2001-02 2,53,950/- 2,28,300/-
2002-03 2,95,770/- 2,70,440/-
2003-04 4,78,000/- 4,78,000/-
The family consist of self, wife two sons and one
daughter. It is seen that all the family members had
given gift to the assessee or her family members.
4. He has never given gift to social organizations, temples
and other religious organizations in his individual capacity.
5. The gift was out of pure love and affection as the assessee
puts Rakhi on his hands for more than 15 years regularly.
6. Although he does not have any correspondence with the
done but personal meetings as well as over telephonic
discussion were there.
7. He was inquired as to when he had taken the loan for
purchase of property which was gifted by him and how he
will repay the loans taken by him, he replied that the loan
was taken for his self residence which was later on gifted.
Since his bank accounts were seized the loan could not be
repaid.
8. It was seen that the net income earned by him during the
Assessment Year 2000-01 to 2002-03 was nearly
7,76,000/- only.
9. He has not received any gift from anyone nor he has given
gift to anybody except to the assessee and her family
members. He has not given any gift to social
organization, temples and other religious organizations
and even to his own real sisters or cousin sisters.
10.The assessee had taken the loans of more than 32 lacs
from different persons to purchase the house which was
gifted by him.
The Assessing Officer observed that in view of the above, as
also the fact that there is no relation between the donor and the
donee and the genuineness and creditworthiness is not proved.
Sh.Pankaj Jain
By profession he is a Chartered Accountant. He is assessed to
tax at Ghaziabad. He is partner in P.Jain & Co. His statement on
oath was recorded by Addl.DI(Investigation).
The Assessing Officer recorded that his statement revealed as
under:-
1. He is a C.A. and is partner in M/s P Jain & Co. and is also
doing the business of purchase and sale of shares.
2. The income declared during the last three years is given
hereunder. He is filing his income tax return since 1994.
A.Y. Gross Net
2000-01 1,90,280/- 1,50,879/-
2001-02 1,96,553/- 1,32,577/-
2002-03 1,81,009/- 1,25,024/-
3. The family consists of self, wife and two dependent children.
4. He has admitted that no substantial amount has been gifted
in his personal capacity to social organization, temples and
other religious organizations. The sources of gift given to the
assessee have been given above.
5. The gift is stated to be out of natural love and affection and
regard for work done by her towards down trodden society.
6. He does not have any correspondence with the done but
stated to be personal meetings were there.
7. The done has never made any gift to the donor and the
donee has not received any gift from anyone.
8. When his attention was drawn to the statement recorded by
Addl.DI New Delhi, he stated that he had been meeting with
the donees at Hanuman Road, New Delhi and still meet them
at our family functions as well as of donees. He has
photographs to prove his visit and their visits. The phone no.
etc, were not remembered by him at that time.
The Assessing Officer, after going through the above facts
found that during the Assessment Year 2003-04 he had gifted a
sum of Rs.17 lacs to her and the family members of the assessee.
He had also made gift of Rs.2 lacs in the Assessment Year 2000-01
and in the Assessment Year 2004-05 made a gift of Rs.5 lacs to the
assessee. As observed by the Assessment Officer that the entire case
made by him is out of amount received from M/s Blue Bell Finance
Co.
The Assessing Officer recorded in his assessment order that It
is surprising that the assessee had gifted the amount out of loan
taken from this concern M/s Blue Bell Finance Co. Since there was
no occasion for making the gift; the gifted amount was more than
the income of the assessee; there was no relation between the
donor and the done; the Assessing Officer held that it was only an
arranged gift and an accommodation entry.
In nutshell the Assessing Officer did not accept the claim of
the assessee in respect of the aforesaid two immovable properties
namely C-57, Inderpuri, New Delhi and C-58, Inderpuri, New
Delhi and added the same to the income of the assessee under
Section 69 of the Income Tax Act. He also did not accept the gift of
Rs.2.00 lac of Sh.Pankaj Jain and made addition of this amount
also to the income of the assessee under Section 69 of the Act.
However, gift of Rs.1.00 lac of Shri O. P. Khadaria and of Rs.10.00
lacs of Shri Ajay Aggarwal were accepted. In the final assessment
order dated 30.03.2006, total income of the assessee was assessed
at Rs.79,03,390/-.
The assessee preferred an appeal against the order under
Section 143(3) dated 30.03.2006 passed by the Assessing Officer.
During the course of appellate proceedings, on the written
submission of the assessee some clarification was sought from the
Assessing Officer as to the creditworthiness of the donors as well as
the financial statement of affairs depicting net worth of Sh.Ashok
Jain, Sh.Pankaj Jain and Smt.Veena Jain. In response to the same,
the Assessing Officer submitted his Remand Report dated
30.10.2006 and certified the net worth of the donors as on
31.03.2002 as under:-
(i) Sh.Ashok Jain : Rs.1,14,74,817/-
(ii) Smt.Veena Jain: Rs.1,32,14,312/-
(iii) Sh.Pankaj Jain: Rs.1,36,01,314/-
On perusal of the above Report, it was seen that Sh.Ashok
Jain had gifted immovable property worth Rs.40,68,450/-,
Smt.Veena Jain has gifted immovable property worth
Rs.22,03,850/- and Sh.Pankaj Jain has made a gift of Rs.2,00,000/.
These gifts were seen in the light of the net worth and
creditworthiness of the above three donors.
The CIT(A) noted that the Assessing Officer had in his
impugned order disallowed the gifts of Sh.Pankaj Jain on the
following grounds:-
(a) All the persons in Jain group have admitted that
they do not know the donees personally and they
are not aware about their addresses and other details
related to the donees.
(b)It is seen that the entire gift of Pankaj Jain was made
by him out of amount received from M/s Blue Bell
Finance Company, it is surprising that the assessee
has gifted the amount out of loan from the concern,
since there was no occasion for making the gifts, the
gifted amount is more than the income of the
assessee, there is no relationship between the donor
and the done, I hold that it is only an arranged gift
and an accommodation entry.
(c) The learned Assessing Officer has held that „since the
assessee has not been able to prove the basic
parameters as laid down by judicial
pronouncements, i.e. the creditworthiness and
genuineness of the gifts, the same are held to be
arranged gifts and will be added towards the income
of the assessee u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act.
(d)The learned Assessing Officer has also held that the
gifts in comparison to the annual income of donors
were beyond comprehension.
(e) The learned Assessing Officer has also held that the
amount of Rs.2 lacs received from Sh.Pankaj Jain has
been found credited in books maintained by the
assessee for her business activity and therefore the
cash of Rs.2 lacs received by her will be charged
under Section 68 of the Income Tax r/w Section
56(1).
The CIT(A), not agreeing with the said addition made by the
learned Assessing Officer in the impugned order, was of the
opinion that it deserves to be dropped on the basis of the
following reasons:
1. Identity, creditworthiness of the donors had been
proved with documentary evidence and coupled
with the fact that he has appeared before the
Assessing Officer, confirms the genuineness of the
gifts as well.
2. The Assessing Officer‟s claim that the said donor
stated that he doesn‟t know the assessee or their
whereabouts is not true and is not substantiated by
the AO with any material.
3. The Assessing Officer had wrongly claimed that
Sh.Pankaj Jain had gifted the said money out of loan
from M/s Blue Bell Finance Company, because it was
given out of repayment of deposits of the donor and
his immediate family lying with the said company.
Moreover, the Assessing Officer erred in stating that
gift of Rs.2 lacs was received in cash from Sh.Pankaj
Jain in spite of the assessee and donor furnishing
documentary evidence regarding the payment of
Gift through a proper bank cheque.
4. The learned Assessing Officer had failed to
appreciate that the gifts cannot be rejected merely
on the ground that there was no occasion or
relationship. The occasion for making the gift and
relationship with donor are not very relevant, rather
what is relevant is the genuineness of the transaction
together with the identity and capacity of the donor.
CIT (A) held that the Assessee, had duly discharged the onus
by filing substantial documentary evidence including gift deeds,
copies of Bank Accounts, IT returns, sworn affidavits apart from
stating on oath and reaffirming the gifts and also indicating amply
his financial status. In this manner the assessee had, thus, proved the
identity of all the donors, their source of immediate funds gifted to
her, and all the donors have on oath confirmed that the gifts are
genuine and were given to the assessee out of natural love and
affection for her.
Likewise, CIT (A) hold that the assessee had justified that the
gifts of Sh.Ashok Jain and Smt.Veena Jain deserved to be accepted
on the following grounds:-
(i) The donors appeared before the Assessing Officer and
confirmed the genuineness of the gifts as well, therefore
the identity, creditworthiness of the donors are proved
with documentary evidence.
(ii) The conclusion of the Assessing Officer was not
substantiated by any material that the donors do not
know the whereabouts of the donee.
(iii) The occasion for making the gift and relationship with
the donor are not very relevant, rather what is relevant
is the genuineness of the transaction together with the
identity and capacity of the donor.
(iv) The Assessing Officer cannot reject the gifts simply on
the ground that since there was no occasion of
relationship between the donor and the donee,
therefore the gifts cannot be accepted.
(v) The assessee had duly discharged the onus by filing
substantial documentary evidence including gift deeds,
copies of bank accounts, IT Returns, sworn affidavit
apart from stating on oath and reaffirming the gifts and
also indicating amply his financial status. The assessee
and all donors have on oath confirmed that the gifts
are genuine and were given to the assessee out of
natural love and affection.
(vi) The onus is not on the assessee to explain how or in
what circumstances the third party obtained the money
and how or why he/she came to make a deposit of the
same with the assessee. However, before coming to
such a conclusion the department has to be in a
possession of sufficient and adequate material. As
already been decided in the case of Vishnulal Karwa vs.
ITO (1987) 32 Taxman 276 (JP) (MAG) that mere
suspicion by itself cannot lead to conclusion that the
amount belonged to the appellant.
As per the CIT(A), it is not necessary as per the Income Tax
Act that the donor and donee must be relatives either as per Gift
Act or the Transfer of Property Act. The CIT(A) was of the opinion
that the gifts received by the assessee cannot be questioned on the
ground of no „occasion‟ and no „relationship‟.
The requirements of gift are that they should be transferred by
one person to another of any existing moveable and immovable
property. The transfer should be voluntary and should be without
consideration of any money. The same should be out of natural
love and affection and done must also accept the said gift.
Main issues were before the CIT(A) were as under:-
(i) Whether the Gifts of immovable properties received by
the assessee from Shri Ashok Jain and Smt. Veena Jain
were genuine?
(ii) Whether the gift received by the assessee of Rs. 2 lac
from Shri. Pankaj Jain was genuine.
(iii) Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 16 (1)
(iv) Whether the A.O. was right in charging interest u/s
234B.
As regards the issue No. 1 of Sh. Ashok Jain who has gifted
property No. C-57, Inderpuri. Sh. Ashok Jain is a practicing
advocate and he is assessed to tad since last so many years. He has
placed details of income tax assessment and bank account before
Assessing Officer. He has filed an affidavit certifying the above gift
and he has also appeared before the Assessing Officer for statement
on oath where also he has confirmed giving of gift out of natural
love and affection. He has also brought on record that the assessee
is his Rakhi Sister and has relationship for so many years which is
even evidenced by photographs of family occasions etc. Sh. Ashok
Jain has also submitted that reciprocation of gift not mandatory
and his creditworthiness has been accepted by the Assessing Officer
himself in the Remand Report.
Further, the immovable properties were first transferred and
registered in the name of donor and then only gifted to donee.
Thus, stamp duty was also paid twice and no lien of the donor
remains on the property. Sh. Ashok Jain has also clarified that the
donee has accepted the gift the same has been made without any
consideration of money.
In spite of such overwhelming facts no evidence at all has
been placed on record by the Assessing Officer to prove that the
transaction of gift was Sham and Benami. The CIT (A) of the
opinion that the genuineness of the gift transactions are
conclusively established inasmuch as the identity and the capacity
of donor, as well as factum of gift stands established. The CIT(A)
came to the conclusion on the settled law that once done furnishes
the gift deed and affidavits of the donors, they suffice to prove the
genuineness of gift. CIT(A) was of the opinion that once the initial
burden of proving the genuineness of the gift and creditworthiness
of the donor was discharged by the assessee the onus shifts on the
Assessing Officer to prove if he contrary. The Assessing Officer was
duty bound to bring new material on record in support of his view,
however, mere rejection of good explanation does not convert
good proof into no proof.
As regards applicability of Section 69, the CIT (A) was of the
opinion that it is not the assessee who has made the investment.
The donor has paid the stamp duty twice, the assessment of the
donor has not been disturbed, the donor and donee are both
accepting the factum of gift. Further the gift is also evidenced by
documentary evidences like gift deeds, sworn affidavits, declaration
before Assessing Officer etc. The donor has also given explanation
for immediate source of gift. Therefore, keeping the aforesaid
discussion into view the CIT (Appeal) was of the opinion that the
donee has discharged not only the burden but also the onus cast on
her. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 40,68,450/- was deleted.
As regards the gift of property No. C-58, Inderpuri, the
CIT(A) did not agree with the assessment order passed by the
Assessing Officer and addition made by the Assessing Officer of
Rs.22,03,850/- was deleted. The basis of this conclusion were
almost as in the case of gift made by her husband Mr.Ashok Jain
regarding the property No. C-57, by Mr.Ashok Jain.
As regards the gift of Rs. 2 lacs received by the assessee from
Sh.Pankaj Jain by provision he is a Chartered Accountant and
assessed to tax since last so many years. The CIT (A) find that he
has placed details of his income tax assessment and bank account
and also filed affidavit certifying the above gift. He appeared
before the Assessing Officer for statement on oath where he
confirmed giving of gift. He has also established that he has been
meeting the assessee, and his family members on family functions
since so many years. The CIT (A) also found that the gift vide A-C
payee cheque no. 17186 dated 17.12.2002 drawn on Andhra Bank
for Rs. 2 lacs.
The CIT (Appeal), thus, accepted the genuineness of gift
inasmuch as the identity and capacity of the donors was proved
and came to the conclusion that factum of gift stood established.
He thus, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.
The revenue as well as the assessee filed cross appeals
registered as ITA No.279/Del/07 and ITA No.422/Del/07 against
the aforesaid order dated 18.11.2006 for A.Y.2003-04 before
Ld.Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The revenue in its appeal ITA
No.422/Del/07 took a stand that the Ld. CIT (Appeals) had erred
in deleting the addition of Rs.2,00,000/- made on account of gift
from Shri Pankaj Jain and further deleting the addition of
Rs.40,68,450/- and Rs.22,03,850/- on account of claim of gift of
property from Shri Ashok Jain and Smt.Veena Jain.
The ITAT dismissed the aforesaid two appeals vide its order
dated 30.11.2007 and thereby confirmed the aforesaid order dated
15.11.2006 passed by ITAT recording the finding that all the three
gifts are not only genuine, but also the identity and capacity of
donors to make the gift stands duly and fully established. Section
68 has no applicability for the reason that cheque received from
Shri Pankaj Jain had been deposited in her bank account. The gift
relating to immoveable properties cannot be covered under Section
68 f the IT Act. The additions cannot be sustained even under
Section 69 of the IT Act. The grounds taken by the revenue were
rejected.
The raison d‟eter in the order of ITAT can be traced to the
following : As per ITAT the issues of genuineness of gift of movable
property and immovable properties. For this purpose it is necessary
to refer to Chapter VII of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 which
deals with gifts of movable and immovable properties. Section 122
defines „gifts‟ as under:-
"Gift" is the transfer of certain existing movable or
immovable property made voluntarily and without
consideration by one person, called the donor, to
another, called the donee, and accepted by or on
behalf of the donee.
Acceptance when to be made.
Such acceptance must be made during the lifetime of
the donor and while he is still capable of giving.
If the donee dies before acceptance, the gift is void."
Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act deals with the
procedure relating to transfer of property gifted for our
convenience this provision is reproduced as under:-
"For the purpose of making a gift of immovable
property, the transfer must be effected by a
registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the
donor, and attested by at least two witnesses.
For the purpose of making a gift of movable
property, the transfer may be (effected either by a
registered instrument signed as aforesaid or by
delivery)
Such delivery may be made in the same way as
goods sold may be delivered."
On perusal of section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act the
essential elements of gift are as under:-
(i) Donor‟s interest to make a gift.
(ii) the gift should be made voluntarily and without
consideration by the donor.
(iii) Delivery of actual or constructive possession;
(iv) Acceptance of the gift by the donee or on his behalf.
In addition, gift of immovable property has to be through a
registered document and transfer of immovable property has to be
effected by a registered instrument signed by on behalf of donor
attested by at least two witnesses, whereas in the case of movable
property such gift should be effected either by registered instrument
or by delivery. The ITAT has relied upon on the case of CIT. U.P.
Lko Vs. Shyamo Bibi, Kanpur AIR 1967 (Alld.) 82 wherein the
Court has observed that whether the transaction is gift or not has
to be examined in the light of Section 122 and 123 of Transfer of
Property Act. The Court has also observed that there is on warrant
for the saying that the law contained u/s 123 of Transfer of
Property Act does not apply when an Income Tax Authority has to
decide whether there was a gift or not. The observation of the
Allahabad High Court reads as under:-
"Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act lays
down the law governing all gifts made for whatever
purpose and it is to be applied whenever the
question arises there was a gift or not. Regardless of
whether the question arises in a suit by a donee to
recover possession or in a suit to define his title or in
an income tax assessment proceeding it has to be
answered with reference to the provisions of section
123 T.P. Act. There is no warrant for saying that the
law contained in Section 123 T.P. Act does not apply
when an income-tax authority has to decide whether
there was a gift or not. Consequently, there has to
be a delivery, if a gift is not made by a registered
document. A question may arise whether a certain
act done by the alleged donor amounts to delivery
of property to the alleged donee but is cannot said
that delivery is not required at all."
The Income Tax Act does not define „gift‟. However, in
general terms gift consists in the relinquishments of one‟s own right
of the property and creation of the right in another in that
property. This concept is in consonance with the definition of gift
in Principles of Hindu Law by Mulla which defines gift as under:-
"Gift consists in the relinquishment (without
consideration) of one‟s own right (in property) and
the creation of the right of another; and the creation
of another man‟s right is completed on that other‟s
acceptance of the gift, but nor otherwise."
The definition of gift as given in Hallsburry‟s Laws of
Englant Volume XVIII page 364 paragraphs 692 is as
under
"A gift under vivo may be defined shortly as the
transfer of any property from one person to another
gratuitously while donor is alive and not in
expectation of death.............."
On the concept of gift we consider it proper to
reproduce the observations of Lord Esher, M.r. made
in Cochrane‟s case, (1890) 25 QBD 57 (supra) which
are as under:-
"............actual delivery in the case of a „gift‟ is
more than evidence of the existence of the
proposition itself. It is one of the facts which
constitute the proposition that a gift has been made.
It is not a piece of evidence to prove the existence of
the proposition; it is a necessary part of the
proposition, and, as such, is one of the facts to be
proved by evidence. The proposition is not that the
one party has agreed or promised to give, and that
the other party has agreed or promised to give, and
that the other party has agreed or promised to
accept. In that case, it is not doubted but that the
ownership is not changed until a subsequent actual
delivery. The giving and taking are not evidence to
prove that there has been a gift, but facts to be
proved to constitute the proposition that there has
been a gift."
In view of the above, the ITAT have examined as to whether
these legal requirements as laid down in Section 122 and 123 of
T.P. Act are satisfied in the case of gifts made to the present assessee
or not. So far as the gift from Sh. Pankaj Jain is concerned, the
transaction was carried out through account payee cheque and
reflected in the bank account of the assessee, which is as per S.B.
A/c No. 9195 on Union Bank of India, Moti Bagh, New Delhi. The
amount of RS. 2 lac is gifted by Sh. Pankaj Jain S/o Sh. P.C.Jain,
Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad. The date of entry is 07.12.2002. Sh.
Pankaj Jain has confirmed the transaction of gift and filed affidavit
dated 07.12.2002 to this effect. The statement of Sh. Pankaj Jain
was also recorded on 30.12.2005 on oath by the ACIT Central
Circle-11.
The ITAT came to the conclusion that the donor is a
Chartered Accountant. He is income tax assessee since 1994. His
net worth as reported by the Assessing Officer to the CIT (Appeal)
is Rs.1,36,01,314/-. Keeping the above documentary and oral
evidence on record, the requirement of law for establishing a
validity executed gift of movable properties are fully satisfied
inasmuch as the donor gifted the amount voluntarily to the donee
and has delivered the possession to the gifted property to the
donee.
The ITAT while dealing with the gift of property bearing
No.C-58 Inderpuri, New Delhi, the donor and the donee both
have signed this deed. This document is duly stamped and duly
registered. Gift has been made irrevocable and absolute and once
for all. The donor transferred and conveyed the free hold property
with all attending rights to the donee by way of gift together with
all privilege, easement and advantages appurtenant thereto.
The ITAT came to the conclusion from the above
documentary and oral evidence that the donor made the gift of
immovable property to the donee voluntarily. The gift was duly
registered and, therefore, the requirement of Section 122 and 123
of the Transfer of Property Act are fully satisfied.
As regards gift of another immovable property i.e. C-57,
Inderpuri, the ITAT after going through the record came to the
conclusion that these gift also fulfilled the requirement of law and
fully satisfied. The ITAT while coming to the above conclusion
define that sufficient evidence was adduced by the assessee before
the Assessing Officer. After going through the assessment order the
ITAT observed that the Assessing Officer while drawing adverse
inference against the assessee in relation to these gifts was
influenced by several other transactions of gift whereas he should
have examined the genuineness and validity of these transactions.
He has not recorded any finding to doubt the identity of the
donors. He has not recorded any finding that the gifts were not
made voluntarily or that the delivery of the possession of the
properties gifted was not given to the donee. He has made
absolutely no enquiries which would enable him to conclude that
the transaction of gift were sham, false or not genuine.
The Tribunal has further observed that the Assessing Officer
has not only conveniently ignored the relevant documentary
evidences produced by the assessee, but has based his conclusion on
extraneous considerations. On going through the assessment order
it is found that he has been unduly influenced by the fact that so
many persons had made several gifts to the assessee and to her
family members not only during the assessment year under
consideration but also in the preceding years and subsequent years.
There is also no evidence to substantiate the fact that the assessee
was directly or indirectly benefited by such gifts, which were
received by her family members nor has the Assessing Officer added
the gifts received by family members as the income of the assessee
from undisclosed sources while framing the assessment of the
assessee for the year under consideration.
The ITAT has held that the Assessing Officer was wrongly
influenced by the fact that there is no relationship between the
donor and donee and, therefore, the genuineness of the transaction
of gifts are not proved. The ITAT has taken a view that a gift may
be made to a stranger. The reference of Section 123 of the Transfer
of Property Act which has been made above does not require that
the gift may be made to a relation only. Thus, the Assessing Officer
has taken a incorrect view of law. The ITAT has referred the case
of CIT Vs. Ms. Sunita Vachani 84 CTR Delhi/184 ITR 121 Delhi ,
wherein the assessee had received gifts from abroad, the
commissioner of Income Tax by invoking the provisions of Section
262 set aside the order of ITO and directed him to pass fresh
assessment order. In that case CIT was of the view that the order
of ITO was prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the ITO had not
examined sources of the gifts to satisfy himself about the
genuineness thereof. On challenging, the ITAT had quashed the
order of CIT(A). Division Bench of this Court observed while
upholding the order of ITAT as under:-
"In our opinion, the tribunal had, on
merits come to the conclusion that the gift were
genuine. This is a pure question of fact. The
tribunal has examined the evidence which was
available on the record and has arrived at the
aforesaid finding. Even though it may be surprising
as to how large sums of money are received by a
family in India by way of gifts from strangers from
abroad, unless there is something more tangible
than suspicion, it will be difficult to regard the
moneys received in India from abroad as
representing the income of the assessee in India.
On the facts existing on the record, we are unable
to come to the conclusion that any question of law
arises. The petition is dismissed. No order as to
cost."
The ITAT has upheld the finding of CIT (A) that the assessee
has fully discharged not only her onus but also the burden cast on
her by proving the identity of donors and their creditworthiness as
well as the genuineness of the gift. Accordingly, the ITAT upheld
the findings of CIT (A) deleting the additions made on account of
the said gifts by the AO.
As the ITAT has come to the conclusion that Section 68 has
no applicability to the facts of the present case as the assessee is not
maintaining any books of accounts. If that be so Section 68 does
not apply in this case for the simple reason cheque received from
Mr.Pankaj Jain has been deposited in her bank account in this
regard. The ITAT was of the opinion that balance sheet/statement
of the affairs cannot be equated to books of account because a pass
book of the bank cannot be treated as a book of account of the
assessee because this is proved by the banker, which is given to its
customer and is only a copy of the customer‟s account in the books
maintained by the bank. The bank does not act as an agent of the
customer nor can it be said that the banker maintains the pass book
under instructions of the customer (assessee) the relationship
between the banker and customer is one of the debtor and creditor
only. Therefore, a cash credit appearing in assessee‟s pass book
relevant to a particular previous year, in a case where the assessee
does not maintain books of account, does not attract the provisions
of Section 68.
Keeping in view the above in the instant case neither the gifts
relating to immovable property can be covered under Section 68
nor the gift of Rs.2 lacs received by the assessee can be covered
under the provisions. In view of the ITAT all gifts satisfied the
requirement of a valid and genuine gift. The assessee has fully
explained the same and therefore it cannot be said the addition can
be sustained even u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act. In this manner the
ITAT has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue Department.
The Revenue has preferred the instant appeal by challenging
order/judgment passed by ITAT on 30.11.2007. Initially, the
questions of law proposed by the Revenue were as under:-
"(a) Whether the ITAT was correct in law in deleting
the addition of Rs.40,68,400/- and Rs.23,03,850/-
made by the Assessing Officer by treating the alleged
gifts of immovable properties from Sh. Ashok Jain
and Smt.Veena Jain on the ground that the
genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction
and the donor has not been proved.
(b) Whether the ITAT was correct in law in deleting
the addition of Rs.2 lacs made by the Assessing
Officer by treating this cash gift from Sh. Pankaj Jain
as non-genuine and also on the ground that the
creditworthiness of the donor has not been proved.
(c) Whether the ITAT was correct in law by
proceedings on the basis that the genuineness of a
gift and the creditworthiness of a donor in respect of
an alleged gift is to be examined and accepted
merely on the basis of such documents/details, which
may be furnished by the Assessee/donor in question,
without permitting any investigation in the matter by
the Assessing Officer, as was done in the instant case
by Ld. CIT (Appeals) in his Order dated 30.11.2007?
(d) Whether the ITAT erred in law by failing to draw
and sustain a presumption of lack of genuineness, in
the context of alleged gift, where the donor and the
donee are wholly unrelated to each other and the
donor allegedly gifted the immovable property,
which has been purchased in the first place by the
donor, by recourse of taking substantial monetary
loan ?
(e) Whether the order of ITAT is perverse as it has
ignored the relevant facts on records as well as the
settled position of law."
Thereafter the revenue department filed reframed substantial
question of law as under:-
(i) Whether the ITAT was correct in law in
deleting the additions of Rs.40,68,400/-,
Rs.23,03,850/- and Rs.2,00,000/- made by the
Assessing Officer on account of bogus and non-
genuine gifts received by the assessee ?
(ii) Whether the Order of ITAT is perverse as the
assessee has failed to prove the genuineness and
creditworthiness of the donors ?
(iii) Whether the ITAT was correct in law in
upholding the Order of CIT (Appeals) who had
accepted the documents at appellate stage
without allowing the Assessing Officer to verify
the correctness and genuineness of these
documents and details ?"
Mr.Vivek K. Tankha, Additional Solicitor General submits
that Mrs. Veena Jain gifted property No. C-58, Inderpuri for
payment of Rs.9.5 lacs from account No. 812 Andhra Bank. She
took loans to the tune of Rs. 20 lacs. She was working with M/s
Pankaj Jain and Co. of chartered accountant and getting a salary
of Rs.5,000/- per month, her husband is also working in this firm.
Learned Additional Solicitor General has pointed out that Smt. Jain
has stated that she has not given any contribution for the welfare
Jain Samaj during last seven years and the only gift she made to
the assessee is one property no. C-58, Inderpuri, New Delhi and
Rs.5 lac in July, 2003 to the assessee. She has also stated that she
visited the resident of assessee for making above gift. The donee
has not given any gift to her. She also stated that gift was made
out of her personal saving and also out of the loan from her near
relatives. As argued by the learned Addl. Solicitor that it is difficult
to believe that she has given gifts of money and immovable assets
by taking loan from various persons and later on gifted the assets
to the assessee with whom she has no relation whatsoever
although it is stated that assessee is Rakhi/Dharam sister of her
husband. The value of gift given by her exceeded the income
declared by assessee during five years. The loan taken by the
donor Smt. Veena Jain was never repaid and it remains the dispute
of genuineness. Creditworthiness stand disputed since she did not
have sufficient funds and she had taken loan and sold her
jewellery.
In regard to the Mr.Ashok Jain, he gifted value of property
C-57, Inderpuri, New Delhi is of worth Rs. 40,68,450/-. His
source of income are tax consultancy, salary, dividend, interest,
shares, sale and purchase of share, income from M/s Bharat
Associates, Ghaziabad. He is filing his income tax return since 1971.
The details of income declared during the last three years is given
as under:-
Assessment year Gross Net
2000-01 Rs.3,12,000/- Rs.2,77,630/-
2001-02 Rs.2,53,900/- Rs.2,28,300/-
2002-03 Rs.2,95,770/- Rs.2,70,440/-
2003-04 Rs.4,78,000/- Rs.4,78,000/-
The family consists of self, wife, two sons and one daughter.
It is not seen that all the family members had given gifts to the
assessee or his family members. He has never given gifts to social
organization, temples and other religious organizations in his
individual capacity. The gift was out of pure love and affection as
the assessee puts Rakhi for more than 15 years regularly. Although
he does not have any correspondence with the donee but personal
meetings as well as over telephonic discussions were there. He was
inquired by the Assessing Officer as and when he had taken the
loan for purchase of property which was gifted by him and he will
repay the loans taken by him. He replied that the loan was taken
for the self residence which was later on gifted. Since his bank
accounts were seized the loan could not be repaid. It is also a
matter on record that the net income earned by him during the
year 2001-02 and 2002-03 was nearly Rs.7,76,000/- only. It is
also a matter on record that he never received any gift from
anyone nor he has given gift to anybody except to the assessee and
her family members. The assessee had taken the loan of more than
Rs. 32 lacs from different persons to purchase the house which was
gifted by him.
Learned Addl. Solicitor General has pointed out that the
ITAT has observed in the judgment that AO was influenced by
other transaction, whereas he should have examined the
genuineness and validity of these transaction separately. As per
him the findings of Assessing Officer of this gift stand
uncontroverted.
On non-genuineness he argued that the actual income was
Rs.1 lac only whereas the gifts made were disproportionate. On
non-creditworthiness loan taken to the tune of Rs.20 lac five
months in advance by a person whose actual income is merely Rs.1
lac and jewellery sold to buy property to gift.
Further the Addl. Solicitor General argued that AO reacted
on the observations made by the ITAT as Assessing Officer has
wrongly co-related the loan taken in May with property purchased
in September. On this issue he has argued that there was no other
sources of legality to show by assessee hence this co-relation is
correct. The burden is always on donor to show the sources of
funds, and it was the assessee who was showing this loan of Rs. 20
lacs from Mangals as a source. He argued the findings of the ITAT
is thus wholly perverse. He further argued that the exercise to
distinction between the question of fact and question of law is
normally difficult because there are some common areas between
the two, where the distinction must be clear. But finding on a
question of fact can be changed as erroneous in law where there is
no evidence to support it, or it is based on material which is
irrelevant or partly relevant and partly irrelevant, or it is based on
contentions or surmise or partly on these and partly on evidence
or the finding is so perverse or unreasonable or no person acting
judicially, instructed on law could have arrived at it.
Lastly, he argued that in this case the two donors had
absolutely no connection with the assessee and they made gift to
the assessee only because she needed money to buy a house and
they warranted to help her. He argued that it appeared that this is
not only quite unusual but also quite unnatural. It sounds rather
uncredible that a complete stranger would want to gift lacs of
rupees to a person only because the person wanted amount for
purchasing the house.
The learned ASG has cited following judgments in support
of his arguments:-
(i) (2003)264IR 0435-(Delhi High Court) Sajan Dass and Sons
Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
"Channels is not sufficient to prove the genuineness of the
gift. Since the claim of the gift is made by the assessee, the
onus lies on him not only to establish the identity of the
person making the gift but also his capacity to make a gift
and that it has actually been received as a gift from the
donor. Having regard to the inquiries conducted by the
Assessing Officer from the bank, with which the assessee
was admittedly confronted and bearing in mind the fact
that admittedly said Subhash Sethi was not related to the
assessee,
We are of the view that the findings recorded by the
Tribunal are pure findings of fact warranting no
interference. We find it difficult to hold that on the facts of
the instant case proper opportunity had not been granted
to the assessee to prove the gift. In our opinion, the
impugned order does not give rise to any question of law,
much less a substantial question of law. The appeal, being
devoid of any merit, is dismissed accordingly."
(ii) (2007) 292 ITR 0552-(Delhi High Court) Commissioner of
Income Tax Vs. Anil Kumar , Madan B.Lokur and Gupta
V.B.JJ, March 13, 2007
"Here in the present case, there is nothing on record to
show as to what was the financial capacity of the donors;
what was the creditworthiness of the donors; what kind of
relationship the donors had with the assessee; what are the
sources of funds gifted to the assessee and whether they had
the capacity of giving large amount of gift to the assessee.
Further, the assessee was asked to appear in person before
the Assessing Officer, however, he never appeared.
Since, the assessee did not prove the genuineness of the
transaction nor he established the identity of the donor, nor
the capacity of donor to make the gift, as such the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal was wrong in deleting the addition
of Rs.20 lacs on account of gift alleged to have been
received by the assessee.
Accordingly, the present appeal filed by the Revenue is
accepted and the impugned order passed by the Income-tax
Appellate Tribunal is set aside."
(iii) (2007) 294 ITR 0488-(Delhi High Court) Rajeev Tondon
Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
"We find from the facts of this case that two donors had
absolutely no connection with the assessee and they made
gifts to the assessee only because he needed money to buy a
house and they wanted to help him. It appears to us that
this is not only quite unusual but also quite unnatural. It
sounds rather incredible that a complete stranger would
want to gift lakhs of rupees to a person only because that
person wanted the amount for purchasing a house. The
taxing authorities were entitled to look into the surrounding
circumstances, which they did, and came to the conclusion
that the gifts could not be said to be genuine. On these
facts, we find no reason why a different view should be
taken.
(iv) (2002) 254 ITR 0225-(Delhi High Court) Commissioner of
Income Tax Vs. B.L.Passi
"It is submitted by Ms. Bansal that the findings
recorded by the Tribunal are perverse inasmuch as there is
no material on record to support the same. It is asserted
that after the matter had been set aside by the
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), fresh notices were
sent to the parties, who, according to the assessed, had
taken trucks on hire, to produce the books of account and
other materials in support of the said claim, but the said
notices were received back unserved and, therefore, the
Tribunal has misdirected itself in relying on the statement of
Vijay Kumar and the affidavit of the director. On the other
hand, Mr. Aggarwal has vehemently argued that the
findings recorded by the Tribunal are pure findings of fact
based on relevant evidence and, therefore, no question of
law, arises out of its order.
The exercise to distinguish between a question of fact
and question of law is normally difficult because there are
some common areas between the two where the distinction
may not be clear. It is well settled that it is not possible to
turn a mere question of fact into a question of law by
asking whether on a matter of law the authority came to a
correct conclusion upon a matter of fact. But a finding on a
question of fact can be challenged as erroneous in law
where there is no evidence to support it; or it is based on
material which is irrelevant or partly relevant and partly
irrelevant; or it is based on conjectures or surmises or partly
on these and partly on evidence; or the finding is so
perverse or unreasonable that no person acting judicially
and properly instructed on law could have arrived at it.
In the instant case, we find from the order of the
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated February 20,
1990, that one of the issues to be examined by the Assessing
Officer in terms of the said order was whether the trucks, in
question were given on hire or not, in other words, put to
use during the previous year. The Commissioner of Income-
tax (Appeals) thought it proper to give such a direction
despite the fact that the statement of the said Vijay Kumar
and the affidavit of the director of the transport company
were already on record. To comply with the said direction,
the Assessing Officer issued fresh notices by registered post
to the parties who are said to have hired the trucks, but
these notices remained unserved. Although copies of the
paper books filed before the Tribunal have been placed on
record but learned counsel for the assessed has not been
able to point out any material/document which was
brought on record by the assessed before the lower
authorities during the course of re-examination of the issue
in pursuance of the directions contained in the
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order dated
February 20, 1990. therefore, prima facie, the findings
recorded by the Tribunal on the issue of user of trucks do
not seem to be based on any material. But we say no more
lest it may prejudice the case of either side.
We are, therefore, of the view that the orders of the
Tribunal give rise to substantial questions of law. We,
accordingly, admit the appeal."
Refuting the aforesaid arguments, Mr. S. K. Mishra, Ld. Sr.
Counsel for the Assessee, argued that question of law does not
arise at all and the attempt of the Revenue is to only show that
findings of the two authorities are perverse and even in this
attempt it has failed. He pointed out that CIT (A) had called for a
remand report from the Assessing Officer and who had himself
submitted this report to the CIT (A) on the basis of which
creditworthiness of the donors was fully proved beyond doubt.
Even otherwise, this question cannot be raised for the first time in
appeal under Section 266(A) when no ground of this nature was
raised before the ITAT.
Learned counsel for the assessee has placed reliance upon the
following judgments:-
(i) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. TATA Chemicals Ltd.
in ITA No.31/2000 decided on 03.04.2002 wherein it
was held that :-
"Mr. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
pressed questions of law framed at serial Nos. (a), (b), (f)
and (j) of the appeal memo. These questions read as follows
:
"(a) Whether the interest which is already capitalised in the
books can be claimed as revenue expenditure for the
purposes of taxation ?
(b) When the three units situated in different places and
there is no functional integrity, common accounts, organic
unity and further there is an ample evidence borne out by
the record that the units were distinct and having its own
entity, whether the Tribunal is justified in coming to the
conclusion that the units are one and others are the
extension/expansion of the other only on certain things
which are not fundamental, basis to the issue ?
(f) Whether the interest attributable to the borrowings for
investments in tax-free bonds is allowable Under section
36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act as the said borrowings are
not for the purpose of business ?
(j) Whether the expenses incurred by the respondent
towards maintenance of guest house can be allowed as
deduction Under section 37(4) of the Act ?"
4. The rest of the questions though raised were not pressed
into service. Hence, our order is confined to the questions
raised. The appeal on other questions stands dismissed as
not pressed.
Consideration :
Question (a) :
As far as question (a) is concerned, it is not in dispute that
this question was not raised before the Tribunal. Mr. Desai
submitted before us that Under section 260A(6)(a) it is
permissible for the High Court to determine any issue which
is not determined by the Appellate Tribunal. The careful
reading of the section will show that the High Court can
decide only that question which was raised but not
determined by the Tribunal. Therefore, it was necessary that
the question sought to be raised ought to have been raised
before the Tribunal and then if it had not determined it,
one can say that it has not been determined by the Tribunal
and, therefore, the High Court should look into it. In the
present case, we do not find that this issue had been raised
before the Tribunal. It is also not the case of the Revenue
that the issue or question was raised but not decided by the
Tribunal. In the circumstances, we do not propose to dwell
on this question."
(ii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. R.S.Sibal in ITA
No.264/2003 decided on 12.11.2003 wherein it was
held that:
5. According to the Revenue, the impugned order involves
the following substantial questions of law:
a) Whether ITAT was correct in law in deleting the addition
of Rs. 9,25,000/- made by the A.O. under section 68 of the
Income Tax Act being the alleged gifts of Rs. 7,00,000/-
and Rs. 2,25,000/- received from the NRI's?
b) Whether ITAT was correct in holding that the assessed
had filed the necessary evidence in support of the
genuineness of the alleged gifts when the assessed had not
established the relationship between the alleged donors and
the donee?
c) Whether ITAT was correct in holding that the A.O. was
not justified in not treating the gifts as genuine merely on
suspicion conjecture and surmises?
d) Whether ITAT was correct in law in holding that the
assessed had discharged the onus in establishing the nature
of the transaction?"
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Assailing
the appellate orders, Mrs. Premlata Bansal, learned senior
standing counsel for the Revenue, has vehemently urged
that both the authorities have failed to appreciate that the
assessed had not established the credit worthiness of the
donors and their relationship with the assessed. It is asserted
that there was no reason why two strangers would make
gifts of heavy amounts to the assessed, who has failed to
prove donors' love and affection for him. In support of the
proposition that mere production of statements of account
or identification of a donor is not sufficient to prove the
genuineness of the gift, learned counsel has placed reliance
on a decision of this Court in Sajan Dass & Sons v.
Commissioner of Income-tax, 2003 (128) Taxman 621.
7. We are unable to agree with learned counsel for the
appellant. 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. But in the
instant case, we find from the record that though the
assessed had admittedly produced the bank statements, the
Assessing Officer did not raise any query with regard to the
capacity of the donors to make the gift. From the
assessment order, we find that the only ground on which
the genuineness of the gifts had been doubted was the
alleged failure on the part of the assessed to establish his
relationship with the donors. Admittedly, there is no blood
relationship between the assessed and the donors. No such
case was even pleaded by the assessed. The donors had
stated in their declarations that they had gifted the amounts
to the assessed on account of their love and affections for
him. Both the lower appellate authorities have recorded a
categorical finding that by producing the afore-mentioned
documents the assessed has discharged the onus which lay
on him with regard to the genuineness of the gifts. The
inference drawn by the appellate authorities, on
appreciation of evidence is factual, giving rise to no
question of law much less a substantial question of law.
(iii) Murlidhar Lahorimal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
being ITA No.225/1994 decided on 14.11.2005
wherein it was held that:-
The Tribunal states that motivation for making the gift is
not established. This finding is neither here nor there. The
assessee was called upon to explain the credit entry found
in its capital account. The assessee pointed out that it had
received a gift from Shri Ramji Nanji. Shri Ramji Nanji
appears before the assessing officer and confirms the fact of
having made the gift. He produces evidence in support of
the source from which the funds for making the gift are
available with him. The gift is given by way of a bank draft.
The revenue does not dispute any of these facts. In fact, the
revenue commences the present proceedings on the day it
makes gift tax assessment qua this very gift in the hands of
the donor.
Despite this factual position, the Tribunal singularly fails to
note the fact that the identity of the donor is established,
the donor having appeared in person before the assessing
officer, the genuineness of the transaction is established, not
only by the receipt of the bank draft, but also by the fact of
transaction having borne gift tax once the assessment was
framed. The primary onus which rested with the assessee,
thus, stood discharged. Thereafter, if the revenue was not
satisfied with the source of the funds in the hands of the
donor, it was upto the revenue to take appropriate action.
The Tribunal fails to consider all these aspects. In fact, the
donor having filed gift tax return and assessment having
been framed on the donor, is not taken into consideration
by the Tribunal at all. This was a very strong factor in
support of the explanation tendered by the assessee.
The Tribunal, to the contrary, goes on to discuss and
question as to why the donor should make a gift to the
assessee; the size of the donor's family and availability or
otherwise of the amount in hands of the donor; the area of
the land held by the donor etc. At best, these could be
factors for the donor to be called upon to explain the
source of the funds in his hands, but that could not be a
ground for disbelieving a gift which had admittedly been
received by the assessee as a gift and being treated as
undisclosed income of the assessee.
Having gone through the statements of the donor as well as
the assessee, it is apparent that despite minor discrepancies,
the factum of the gift having been made has been accepted
by the donor and in the circumstances, it cannot be stated
that the credit entry in the capital account of the assessee
did not reflect the true picture. The assessee had shown the
same as gift received. The assessee tendered an explanation
and nothing has been brought on record to even hold for a
moment that the said explanation is not satisfactory.
Though the same is stated as a conclusion, the reasoning for
stating so is as to disbelieving source of source. In these
circumstances, the impugned order of Tribunal cannot be
sustained.
(iv) Nek Kumar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
in ITA No.93/2002 decided on 22.07.2002 wherein it
is held as under:-
Donor having given an affidavit and also filed a
declaration that she has given the gift to the assessee and
there being no material evidence whatsoever to show
that the money was deposited by the assessee or by any
relative in the bank from where it came back to the
assessee, the gift cannot be treated as non-genuine and,
therefore, addition was not justified.
(v) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mrs.Sunita Vachani in
ITA No.101/1999 decided on 05.02.1990 wherein it
was held as under:-
There were some gifts from abroad which not taxed by
the Income-tax Officer. The Commissioner of Income-
tax issued notice under section 263 of the Income-tax
Act, 1961, and passed an order setting aside the order
or Income-tax Officer and directing the Income-tax
Officer pass a fresh assessment. The view of the
commissioner of Income-tax Officer to that the order of
the Income-tax Officer was prejudicial to the interests
of the Revenue as the Income-tax Officer had gone into
the sources of the gifts and had not satisfied himself
about the genuineness thereof.
The assessed filed an appeal to the Tribunal went into
the facts, saw the balance-sheet of the donors which
had been placed on the record and then came to the
conclusion that, on merits the decision of the Income-
tax Officer to treat the moneys received as gifts was
correct and, secondly there was no error committed by
the Income-tax Officer and that there was nothing
more which he would investigate into than what he
had already done. The order of the Commissioner of
Income-tax was accordingly, quashed.
In our opinion, the Tribunal had, on merits, come to
the conclusion that gifts were genuine. This is a pure
question of fact. The Tribunal has examined the
evidence which was available on the record and has
arrived at the money are received by a family in India
by way of gifts from strangers from abroad, unless
there is something more tangible than suspicion, it will
be difficult to regard the money received in India from
abroad as representing the income of assessed in India.
On the facts as existing on the record, we are unable to
come to the conclusion that any question of law arises.
The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(vi) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Orient Enterprises in
ITA No.91/1987 decided on 10.01.1990 wherein it is
held as under:-
Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the assessed
discharged his onus by giving conflicting statements is
perverse and erroneous and not rationally possible ?
Whether the statements of Shri M. P. Jain, Shri M. K.
Suri and Sher Singh recorded on March 23, 1979, April
2, 1979, and May 18, 1979 are relevant and admissible
as evidence in view of their contradictions in their
statements and to what extent the said statements can
be relied upon by the Tribunal while considering the
additions made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act,
1961 ?"
As is evident from the questions themselves, the case
pertains to two cash credits of Rs. 4 lakhs and Rs. 1 lakh
in the name of Krishnan Lal Prahlad Rai Saraf and Shri.
M. K. Suri, respectively, on March 21, 1979, and March
26, 197 These cash credits related to the year 1979-80.
The Income-tax officer examined Shri. M. K. Suri and
came to the conclusion that the cash credits were not
genuine and he added those amounts in the hands of
the respondents. An appeal was filed before the
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who confirmed
the order of the assessing authority. Further appeal was
filed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The
Tribunal took note of the evidence on record and also
noticed the same contradictions which were there in
the statements which had been recorded by the
Assessing Officer. The Tribunal nevertheless came to the
conclusion that the burden which had lain on the
assessed for establishing the cash credits had been duly
discharged on the basis of the evidence on the record.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal is perverse.
We are unable to agree with him. The Tribunal has
referred to all the evidence on record which included
confirmatory certificates which had been issued with
regard to the said cash credits. The Tribunal has also
referred to the statements of the witnesses which had
been recorded and has then come to the conclusion
that the burden which was on the assessed had been
discharged. It is pertinent to note that one of the items
on which reliance was placed by the Tribunal was that
some payments by way of interest had also been made
by cheques. In our opinion, it cannot be said that the
conclusion of the Tribunal is perverse. The question as
to whether the cash credits were genuine or not is a
pure question of fact and we find no question of law
arising in this case. The petition is, accordingly,
dismissed. No costs.
(vii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Orissa Corporation
(P) Ltd. being Appeals No.1379 & 1380 of 1974
decided on 19.03.1986 wherein it is held as under:-
The question was again considered by this Court in Homi
Jehangir Gheesta v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
City [1961]41ITR135(SC) , when this Court reiterated that it
was not in all cases that by mere rejection of the
explanation of the assessee, the character of a particular
receipt as income could be said to have been established;
but where the circumstances of the rejection were such that
the only proper inference was that the receipt must be
treated as income in the hands of the assessee, there was no
reason why the assessing authority should not draw such an
inference. Such an inference was an inference of fact and
not of law. It was further observed that in determining
whether an order of the Appellate Tribunal would give rise
to a question of law the court must read the order of the
Tribunal as a whole to determine whether every material
fact, for and against the assessee, had been considered fairly
and with due care; whether the evidence pro and con had
been considered in reaching the final conclusion; and
whether the conclusion reached by the Tribunal had been
coloured by irrelevant considerations or matters of
prejudice. It was further reiterated that the previous
decisions of this Court did not require that the order of the
Tribunal must be examined sentence by sentence through a
microscope as it were, so as to discover a minor lapse here
or an incautious opinion there to be used as a peg on
which to hang an issue of law. In considering probabilities
properly arising from the facts alleged or proved, the
Tribunal did not Indulge in conjectures, surmises or
suspicions.
(viii) CIT vs. Sh.Kulwant Rai in ITA No.86/2006 decided on
13.02.2007 wherein it has been held that:-
In case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar
[1999]2SCR728 it has been explained as to what can be
termed as substantial question of law. It was held:
If the question of law termed as substantial question stands
already decided by a larger bench of the High Court
concerned or by the Privy Council or by the federal Court
or by the Supreme Court, its mere wrong application to
facts of the case would not be termed to be a substantial
question of law. Where a point of law has not been
pleaded or is found to be arising between the parties in the
absence of any factual format, a litigant should not be
allowed to raise that question as substantial question of law
in second appeal. The mere appreciation of the facts, the
documentary evidence or the meaning of entries and the
contents of the document cannot be held to be raising a
substantial question of law. But where it is found that the
first appellate Court has assumed jurisdiction which did not
vest in it, the same can be adjudicated in the second appeal,
treating it as substantial question of law. Where the first
appellate Court is shown to have exercised its discretion in a
judicial manner, it cannot be termed to be an error either of
law or of procedure requiring interference in second appeal.
In another case reported as Panchugopal Barua v. Umesh
Chandra Goswami [1997]2SCR12 , it has been laid down
that existence of substantial question of law is sine qua non
for the exercise of jurisdiction. It was held:
A bare look at Section 100 C.P.C. shows that the jurisdiction
of the High Court to entertain a second appeal after the
1976 amendment is confined only to such appeals as
involve a substantial question of law, specifically set out in
the memorandum of appeal and formulated by the High
Court. Of course, the proviso to the Section shows that
nothing shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power
of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal
on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by
it, if the Court is satisfied that the case involves such a
question. The proviso presupposes that the Court shall
indicate in its order the substantial question of law which it
proposes to decide even if such substantial question of law
was not earlier formulated by it. The existence of a
"substantial question of law" is thus, the sine qua non for the
exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended provisions of
Section 100 C.P.C.
Similarly in a decision of this Court reported as Mahavir
Woolen Mills v. C.I.T. (Delhi) [2000]245ITR297(Delhi),
meaning of "substantial question of law" has been
explained. It was held:
The issue raised by the assessed in the appeal cannot be said
to involve any question of law, much less a substantial
question of law. A question of fact becomes a question of
law, if the finding is either without any evidence or
material, or if the finding is contrary to the evidence, or is
perverse or there is no direct nexus between the conclusion
of fact and the primary fact upon which that conclusion is
based. But, it is not possible to turn a mere question of fact
into a question of law by asking whether as a matter of law
the authority came to a correct conclusion upon a matter of
fact.
In Edwards v. Bairstow [1955] 28 ITR 579 , Lord Simonds
observed that even a pure finding of fact may be set aside
by the court if it appears that the commissioner has acted
without any evidence or on a view of the facts which could
not be reasonably entertained. Lord Radcliffe stated that no
misconception may appear on the face of the case, but it
may be that the facts found are such that no person acting
judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law
could have come to the determination under appeal. In
those circumstances the court may intervene.
The words " substantial question of law" has not been
defined. But the expression has acquired a definite
connotation through a catena of judicial pronouncements.
Usually five tests are used to determine whether a
substantial question of law is involved. They are as follows:
1)whether, directly or indirectly, it affects substantial rights
of the parties, or
2) the question is of general public importance, or
3) whether it is an open question in the sense that the issue
has not been settled by pronouncement of the Supreme
Court or Privy Council or by the Federal Court, or
4)the issue is not free from difficulty, and
5) it calls for a discussion for alternative view.
Our attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the
assessee that the creditworthiness of the donors was never
challenged before ITAT, and therefore, in the instant appeal the
revenue cannot challenge the same. It is further submitted that the
alleged substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue in the
revised statement does not arise from the order of the Tribunal as
the same was neither the ground of appeal taken by the Revenue
before the Tribunal, thus the Revenue cannot take this question in
the present appeal. Learned counsel for the assessee further argued
that there are three donors from one family - two of them namely
Sh.Ashok Jain and Mrs.Veena Jain (Husband-wife) and Sh.Pankaj
Jain (Nephew of Mr.Ashok Jain), thus aggregate gift is of Rs.64.72
lacs from three said persons. All the three donors have confirmed
giving of gifts on oath in their respective affidavits and also
appeared before the Department and gave their statements
confirming giving of impugned gifts. All the three donors
appeared before the Registrar and executed registered gift deeds
since all three have a close relationship of more than 15 years and
are family friends of the assessee. The ITAT has recorded
exhaustive finding of facts on the identity and capacity and
genuineness of the gifts of all the three donors. Even the Assessing
Officer has also recorded its finding of its creditworthiness of its
three donors in his remand report. The assessee had filed sufficient
material showing closeness between the donors and the assessee.
Further, learned counsel for the assessee has pointed out as per as
the findings of the Tribunal that the statement of donors were not
confronted by the assessee. On the other hand, the other two gifts
from Mr.Ajay Aggarwal and Mr.O.P.Khadaria, Advocate were
accepted by the Assessing Officer and the findings were recorded
by the CIT(A), the Tribunal has held that the addition cannot be
made under Section 68 as books of accounts are not maintained
and Section 68 is not applicable. He further clarified that there is
no challenge of this finding by the Revenue in the present appeal.
We have considered the respective submissions of both sides
and also minutely gone through the orders passed by the Assessing
Officer, CIT (A) as well as ITAT. We find substance in the
contention of the learned counsel for assessee that there are pure
findings of facts recorded by the two authorities below on the
basis of evidence adduced which was sufficient to discharge the
onus as well as burden caused upon her by proving the identity of
donors, their credit worthiness as well as genuineness of the gifts. It
has been established that the assets of Sh.Ashok Jain as on
31.03.2003 including movable/immovable assets were of Rs.1.25
crores, whereas the liability owned by Sh.Ashok Jain was only
Rs.11.88 lacs less Rs.10.78 lacs. Keeping the assets owned by
Sh.Ashok Jain we are of the considered view that he had the
capacity to make gifts in question. Therefore, we do not find any
force in the arguments of the learned ASG that Sh.Ashok Jain had
no capacity to do the same.
Further in the case of Mrs.Veena Jain, details of assets proved
on record show that the total assets of Mrs. Veena Jain were of
Rs.1.34 crores & the liabilities were only of Rs.2.11 lacs. We have
perused the assets owned by Mrs.Veena Jain and found that she
had capacity to borrow first, and then to gift as per her desire. The
capacity does not mean what you are earning monthly or annually.
The capacity includes how much total assets a person own. So is
the case of Mrs.Veena Jain here, she had an asset of Rs.1.34 crores,
definitely could borrow Rs.20 or 25 lacs easily. Second plea
regarding Mrs.Veena Jain is that if a person buys any property for
her personal use, she will definitely not make the gift for the same.
Here on perusal of the record it is revealed that she has stated
before the Department that the assessee is a Rakhi sister of her
husband and she is great admirer of the assessee because she is
working for the upliftment of the down trodden and poor persons
of the society. Sometimes a person does not have to be related to
a particular trust or a charitable institution, but in their view that
trust or institution is doing a great service to the particular section
of the society. Therefore, we do not find any force in the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Revenue.
Further, it is also not necessary that a person should be a habitual
donor. It depends from person to person, thinking to thinking and
situation to situation. Sometimes a person keeps donating
throughout their life and sometimes he donates once and
sometimes during the last stage of his life. Therefore, we do not
agree with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
Revenue.
Learned counsel for the Assessee has vehemently argued that
the Revenue has relied upon the judgments cited above are not
relevant in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In the
case of Sajan Dass and Sons vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax
(Supra), the donor was not found related to the assessee, however,
in the present case the donors have 15 years old relationship with
the assessee as has been proved by the evidence, affidavits on oath
and photographs. Therefore, the aforesaid case does not held the
Revenue Department.
Another case of Anil Kumar (Supra) has also no relevance
because in the said case the assessee was asked to explain the
capacity and genuineness of the donor, however, the assessee did
not appear before the Department. But, in the present case the
assessee herself submitted all the relevant documents before the
Revenue . That apart, all the donors appeared, confirmed and filed
affidavits on oath. Therefore, this case of Anil Kumar is not
relevant in the present situation.
So is the case of Rajeev Tandon (Supra) wherein, the donor
was complete stranger, but in the present case all the donors have
15 years old relationship with the assessee as has been proved by
evidence, documents and their statements.
Further, in the case of B.L.Passi (Supra) the noticee never
appeared before the Department, however in the present case the
donors have appeared and made statements on oath. Therefore,
this case is also of no help to the Revenue.
On the perusal of the afore-cited judgments by the Revenue,
we are also of the view that none is supporting the arguments
advanced by the Revenue as all are on the different facts and
circumstances.
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. We have noted that in earlier years also
they had made gifts to the assessee and her family members, which
were accepted by the 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 the
Department. The donors are persons of sufficient means. The
assessee has fully discharged her legal obligations by disclosing the
identity of all the donors. Further, donors have proved their
genuineness and capacity to make a gift. All assessee as well as the
donors had appeared before the Registrar and the gifts are duly
registered. All gifts are absolute and without any lien of anyone.
There is no evidence on record to prove that the assessee has
favoured the donor in any manner whatsoever by acquiring the
gifts in question. The capacity of any person does not mean how
much they earn monthly or annually, but the term capacity has
vided term and that can be perceived by how wealthy he is. All
the formalities, as per law are met by the assessee and donors as
well. All the donors have admitted that they are great admirer of
the assessee as she is working for the upliftment of poor people.
The issue raised by the Revenue in the instant appeal cannot
be said to involve any question of law, much less a substantial
question of law. A question of fact becomes a question of law, if
the finding is either without any evidence or material, or if the
finding is contrary to the evidence, or is perverse, as was held in
the case of Mahavir Woolen Mills (Supra).
In the light of above facts and circumstances, we are of the
considered view that no substantial question of law arises from the
instant appeal. Therefore, we confirm the judgment passed by the
ITAT and dismiss the instant appeal of the Revenue with no order
as to costs.
SURESH KAIT, J
A.K.SIKRI, J
August 03 , 2011
rd
„nks/mr/mk‟
