BHUPINDER SINGH GILL vs. C I T AND ANR.

ORDER:

The assessee has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 28.9.2007 (Annexure A-3) passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘A’ in I.T.A. No.123/Chd/2007 for the assessment year 2000-01, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether the impugned orders Annexure A-1 and A-3 are legally sustainable in the eyes of law as regard to declaring the gifts as not genuine when the assessee has received the gift through the proper banking channel?

ii) Whether the impugned orders Annexure A-1 and A-3 are legally sustainable in the eyes of law as regard to the declaring the gifts as not genuine when the assessee has given sufficient explanation with regard to the same and an affidavit was also filed confirming that the gift was furnished by the donor?”

The assessee claimed to have received a gift from his cousin in Canada through banking channel, genuineness of which was doubted by the Assessing Officer. The assessee produced confirmation by e-mail and unattested affidavit of the donor. The Assessing Officer held that the transaction was not genuine, inter-alia, on the ground that equal amount was deposited simultaneously in the account of the donor. The donor was a housewife. The donor was not produced inspite of opportunities. On appeal, the CIT (Appeal) reversed the said finding, inter-alia, on the ground that husband of the donor had the sources of income and inference drawn by the Assessing Officer for holding the gift not to be genuine was not called for.

The Tribunal, on appeal of the revenue, restored the order of the Assessing Officer, noticing the following:- “i) That the donor is a housewife having no independent source of income. ii) That the donor was never produced before the assessing officer inspite of repeated asking by him. iii) That the affidavit filed by the assessee is a self serving document.

iv) That the affidavit claimed to be sent by the donor is not attested one. v) That the assessee has not explained satisfactorily the deposit of identical amount deposited in the account of the donor immediately before the issuance of alleged gift. vi) That he never produced the copy of passport evidencing the departure of the donor from India showing his inability to produce her before the assessing officer.”

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length.

Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the finding of the Tribunal was perverse as no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee for not producing the donor; no adverse inference could be drawn from the fact that identical amount was deposited in the account of the donor simultaneously.

We do not find merit in the contention raised.

The finding recorded by the Tribunal is pure finding of fact by appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. Reasons for the finding cannot be held to be irrelevant or non-existent.

No substantial question of law arises.

The appeal is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE October 20, 2008 ( L. N. MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3