AJEETA KAUR SALUJA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX


IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

ITA No. 219 of 2009

<u>Decided on : 16th July, 2009.</u>

AJEETA KAUR SALUJA

... Appellant

through:

Mr. Anil Sharma, Advocate.

VERSUS

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

... Respondent

through:

Ms. Sonia Mathur, Advocate.

CORAM:-

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

- 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? - 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? - 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?

A.K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL)

Page 1 of 6

ITA No.219 of 2009



Patiala-II Vs. Om Prakash Bidhi Chand, 141 ITR 751, observa contained therein as under:

"The powers of the Tribunal to pronounce upon the matter in issue are very wide. If on the material on record more than one arguments available for recording a same or similar finding and if any of the arguments was not found mentioned in the order of the ITO or the ACC, the Tribunal is always entitled to record such a finding, subject however to the assessees having been given an opportunity of being heard in that regard."

- After going through the record, the order of the AO, CIT(A) as well as ITAT, we find that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no prejudice is caused to the appellant. From the narration of facts discussed above, it is clear that in order to find out the genuineness of the gifts 'presented' to the assessee, the AO had posed certain queries to the appellant and for want of any satisfactory answer, particularly, when the assessee could not produce the donors, the AO found that those entries were bogus. The AO while doing so, recorded the following reasoning: - 1. "It has been clearly proved by the AD that the alleged donors did not have the capacity to give gifts, in view of meager savings in his bank account. - 2. The explanation given by the appellant was not found satisfactory as the amount was deposited in cash in the


accounts of the donors and when withdrawn througe banker cheque to give it the colour of genuineness.

- 3. The purported donors were strangers 10 the done in the sense that they were not related to the done in any way. It is, therefore, unlikely that a man having a meager saving in his bank account could have given gift to this extent. - 4. The gifts were found to be not genuine. It was a stage managed affair. - 5. The appellant has adopted the modus operandi to introduce her unaccounted money in the garb of gifts from different persons." - 5. The above findings are confirmed not only by the CIT(A), but by the ITAT as well. Thus, it is the revenue, which has discharged the initial onus in the matter. - 6. After the aforesaid facts were found onus shifted upon the assessee to show as to how the entries were genuine and not bogus, which the assessee could not discharge. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation by the assessee, the findings are correctly recorded that the aforesaid three purported gifts are bogus. Once we proceed on these facts, the case is clearly covered under Section 69A of the

ITA No.219 of 2009 Page 5 of 6


Income Tax Act. From the order of the ITAT, we find one reason inference that at the time of arguments, this must be a poser. In fact, Para 10 of the order of the ITAT, the contention to this effect of the revenue is noted and thus it is not possible to contend that this plea was not taken up in the ITAT. In view thereof, the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court cited above by the appellant is not applicable.

A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE

(VALMIKI J. MEHTA)

July 16, 2009.