SH. YASH PAUL KHANNA PROP.,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR
Facts
The assessee claimed to have received gifts totaling Rs. 9 lakhs from two NRIs via bank drafts. During assessment, one donor, Mr. Gurdev Singh, denied making any gifts and stated the assessee had provided him with Rs. 11.50 lakhs in cash, from which he issued the drafts. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 11.50 lakhs to the assessee's income, citing it as undisclosed cash deposited by the donor, which was upheld by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal agreed that the alleged gifts were bogus. However, it ruled that the addition of Rs. 11.50 lakhs, representing cash deposited by the donor in his own bank account, could not be sustained in the assessee's hands without direct evidence linking the cash source to the assessee. The onus to explain this source lay with the donor, Mr. Gurdev Singh, not the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had not made a specific addition for the bogus gifts of Rs. 9 lakhs in the assessment order, and the tribunal cannot improve upon the AO's order to make a new case.
Key Issues
Whether an addition related to cash deposits in an alleged donor's bank account, used to provide "gifts" to the assessee, can be made in the hands of the assessee, and the burden of proof for the source of such deposits.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250(6), 263, 234-B, 69A, 68, 131
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A)-II, Ludhiana dated 20.04.2007 passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has arisen from the order of the ITO, Ward-III (2), Jalandhar passed u/s 143(3) of the
Act, 1961 dated 03.02.2006.
2 I.T.A. No. 211/Asr/2007 Assessment Year: 2001-02 2. Though the section quoted by the AO is 143(3) dated 03.02.2006, we find
from records that in this case the original assessment was framed on 23.02.2024, u/s
143(3) on a total income of Rs.1,35,690/- (as against return income of Rs.1,06,150/-
), which has been subsequently set aside by the ld. CIT, Jalandhar-II, by invoking his
jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, vide order dated 3rd November, 2014,issuing direction
to frame the assessment afresh after making detailed enquiry and after considering all
aspects of the matter.
As such, for all legal purposes this assessment order dated 03.02.2006 is an
order u/s 143(3)/263 and should be considered as such.
Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 are reproduced as
under:
“1. That the CIT (A) was not justified in sustaining the addition of 11,50,000/- on account of income from undisclosed sources. Both of them failed to appreciate that there was no such credit in the books of appellant which could be treated as his income.
That the CIT(A) wrongly approved the action of the I.T.O. in treating the cash credit in the Bank account of Shri Gurdev Singh as income of the appellant by accepting the self contradictory statement of Gurdev Singh.
That both CIT (A) and the I.T.O. failed to establish any nexus between the gifts of 9,00,000/- made by Gurdev Singh & Nishan Singh and the cash of Rs.11,50,000/- found credited in the bank account of Gurdev Singh and therefore no addition could have been made in the hands of the appellant.
3 I.T.A. No. 211/Asr/2007 Assessment Year: 2001-02
That the CIT (A) wrongly approved the action of the A.O. in commenting and disbelieving the report of the hand-writing expert without even confronting the same to the expert or the appellant.
That the CIT (CA) was not justified in brushing aside the attestation of affidavit and the gift deed by the Executive Magistrate and Notary Public who were duly competent to attest the signatures of the executors of Gift Deed and the affidavit.
That the CIT (A) & AO. were not justified in ignoring the request of the assessee for calling the second donor Nishan Singh. This action of both the CIT(A) & A.O. is against the principle of natural justice.
That the CIT (A) and A.O. failed to appreciate the assessment order framed was on the directions of CIT-I, Jalandhar after cancellation of the earlier assessment order u/s 263 and the fresh assessment could have been framed only as per those directions.
That the interest u/s 234-B has been wrongly charged.
That the orders of the CIT(A) and ITO are against law and facts of the case.”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in textile business and is
the proprietor of M/s Rohit Textiles and apart from regular business income, has
claimed to have received two gifts of Rs. 4.5 lakhs each totaling Rs. 9 (Nine) lakhs,
from one Mr. Gurdev Singh and his son Mr. Nishan Singh, (both stated to be NRI),
during the FY 2000-01, (relevant to the year under appeal), by bank drafts, and the
said amount has been duly capitalized by the assessee, (copy of the assessee capital
account is reproduced).
4 I.T.A. No. 211/Asr/2007 Assessment Year: 2001-02
During the fresh assessment proceedings (post 263 direction), the assessee
was called upon to establish the identity and the creditworthiness of the donors and to
establish the genuineness of the gifts received , and in order to establish the same,
elaborate submissions along with documentary evidences has been filed by the
assessee, stating that both the donors are NRI (Non-Resident Indian) and has
furnished, copies of their bank A/c No. xxxxx3687 with State Bank of India,
5 I.T.A. No. 211/Asr/2007 Assessment Year: 2001-02 Mukerian Branch from where the drafts has been purchased by the donors for the
purpose of gift to the assessee, supported by copies of gift deeds, signed by Sh.
Gurdev Singh and his son Mr. Nishan Singh ( the donors in this case ), copies of
affidavits of the donors , bank statement and various evidences as proof of donors
existing business to establish the donors credit worthiness ( financial standings), and
consequently, the AO has also conducted elaborate enquiries and has raised various
queries and has summoned the said donors to record their statements on oath to
satisfy himself regarding the genuineness of the gifts .
However, as it turned out, in response to summon , one of the donors (Mr.
Gurdev Singh) physically presented himself before the AO and his statement has
been recorded by the AO on 26.12.2005 where the donor has categorically denied of
making any gift to the assessee and has also denied his signatures on relevant
documents furnished by the assessee, including his signature on gift deeds and
affidavits, which he stated to be forged.
It has been further clarified by the donor (during deposition before the AO) ,
regarding the credit entries reflected in his bank A/c , the State Bank of India A/c No.
xxxxx3687 and xxxxx3688 , Mukerian Branch, where cash has been found to have been deposited , on separate two occasions on 19th December, 2000 , for an amount
of Rs.6 ( six ) lakhs and again on 13.02.2001 being an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- (
6 I.T.A. No. 211/Asr/2007 Assessment Year: 2001-02 totaling Rs.11.50 lakhs ( Rs. Eleven lakhs fifty thousand ), are funds which are
handed over by the assessee ( Yash Paul Khanna ) himself to the donors , and it was further stated by Sh. Gurdev Singh the donor on 12.01.2006 ( 2nd round) of
examination ) that he issued two demand drafts of Rs.4,50,000/- each by debiting his
bank account , on 24.02.2021, which has been made out of the cash deposits in the
bank account as stated earlier.
It was again retreated by the donor , that an amount of Rs.11,50,000/- has
been received from the assessee in cash, which has been deposited in his bank
account and thereafter as per requirements and instruction of the assessee the said
donor Mr. Gurdev Singh ( and his son ) has purchased two drafts of Rs.4,50,000/-
each, from his bank account, in favour of the assessee Mr. Yash Paul Khanna , and
the same has been handed over to him in form of gift.
On 31st January, 2006, (following the principles of natural justice), 10.
opportunities were allowed for cross-examination of witness, in course of assessment
proceedings and the said opportunity was also availed by the assessee and his
lawyers the cross examination of the donor Mr. Gurdev Singh was conducted by Mr.
S.K. Bajaj (Advocate) and Mr. Y.K. Sud the CA of the assessee ) in presence of the
assessee himself , and the entire proceedings are recorded by the AO and has been
made a part of the assessment order.
7 I.T.A. No. 211/Asr/2007 Assessment Year: 2001-02
The answer of the donor to question number -3 in course of cross examination
sums up the entire factual aspect of the matter and the nature of transfer of fund has
been elaborately made clear in his answer (reproduced in page no. 35 and 36 of the
assessment order) which are also reproduced here for ready reference: (Relevant
portion of the donor reply during CO reproduced)
“Q.3 What type of relations and dealing you have with Sh. Yash Pal Khanna.
Ans. I have no relation with Sh. Yash Pal Khanna. As regards the dealing, I am to state Sh. Yash Pal Khanna gave me cash worth Rs.11,50,000/-. As desired by him, I have given two drafts worth Rs.9,00,000/- (Rs.4,50,000/- each) to Yash Pal Khanna and the balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was returned by me by withdrawing Rs.2,00,000/- from my saving bank account and Rs.50,000/- from my home savings.”
Another statement of the donor was recorded on 12th January, 2006 ( 12.
reproduced in page – 23 of assessment order), where the entire nature of the
transaction has been made absolutely transparent.
“Q.1 In response to the summons dated 03.01.2006 you have produced before me complete copies of two SB A/c Nos.3687 and 3688 of SBI, Mukerian. A perusal of your A/c No.3688 indicates the following cash deposits:
Date Amount 19.12.2000 6,00,000/- 13.02.2001 5,50,000/-
8 I.T.A. No. 211/Asr/2007 Assessment Year: 2001-02
There is also Debit entry of Rs.9,00,000 appearing in this account on 24.02.2001. Please state whether you really made any gift to Shri Yash Pal Khanna as claimed and confronted to you during the course of your statement recorded on 26.12.2005? Also please explain the nature of aforesaid cash deposits.
Ans. As already stated during the course of my statement on 26.12.2005, I came in contact with Shri Yash Pal Khanna only through my brother Shri Rawel Singh. At his instance, I gave two Demand Drafts of Rs.4,50,000/- each by debiting the amount of Rs.9,00,000/- to my aforesaid account on 24.02.2001. As regards the deposits of Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.5,50,000/-, I am to state that Shri Yash Pal Khanna originally wanted to have drafts aggregating to Rs.11,50,000/-for which he paid the amount of Rs.11,50,000/- to me in cash оп 19.12.2000 and 13.02.2001 as per details given above. Later on, he asked for an aggregate drafts worth Rs.9,00,000/-. Two drafts of Rs.4,50,000/- each were accordingly given by me to Shri Yash Pal Khanna through my brother Shri Ravel Singh. The amount received in excess was returned to my brother Shri Ravel Singh for returning the same to Shri Yash Pal Khanna after withdrawing the same from my aforesaid account on 20.02.2001. The remaining Rs.50,000/- was returned from my personal savings.
Q.2 From the aforesaid facts it is clear that you gave the drafts aggregating to Rs.9,00,000/- to Shri Yash Pal Khanna after receiving cash of the like amount from him through your brother Shri Ravel Singh. Is this observation correct?
Ans. Yes.
Q.3 At the time of your earlier statement recorded on 25.12.2005, you were asked to indicate whether your brother Shri Ravel Singh received any money from Shri Yash Pal Khanna in lieu of the aforesaid Demand drafts. In response to this question, you had stated that Shri Ravel Singh might have received money/cash from Shri Yash Pal Khanna but you were not sure. Please state the truth in this regard.
9 I.T.A. No. 211/Asr/2007 Assessment Year: 2001-02
Ans. After the recording of statement on 26.12.2005, I discussed the matter with my brother Shri Ravel Singh and as a result of the said discussion, the position regarding receipt of cash as deposited in my Bank A/c on 19.12.2000 and 13.02.2001 got clarified.
Q.4 Please reaffirm whether any cash was received in lieu of the Demand Drafts given to Shri Yash Pal Khanna?
Ans. I reaffirm that the Demand Drafts worth Rs. Nine lacs were given to Shri Yash Pal Khanna through my brother Shri Ravel Singh after receiving cash of the like amount as per details already given above.
Q.5 At the time of your original statement, you had stated that you did not sign the Gift-deed dated 19.02.2005 and an affidavit dated 18.02.2005. Please reaffirm the facts stated in this regard in your statement recorded on 26.12.2005.
Ans. I reaffirm that I did not sign the Gift-deed or affidavit mentioned above.
Q.6 Did you go to the Courts with Shri Yash Pal Khanna for attestation etc. of the Affidavit or the Gift-deed mentioned above.
Ans. I confirm that I did not accompany Shri Yash Pal Khanna to the courts for attestation etc. of the aforesaid documents.
Q.7 Did you call Shri Yash Pal Khanna in the marriage of your son Shri Nishan Singh?
Ans. No I did not invite him in the marriage of my son.
Q.8 Did you hand over photographs of the marriage of your son to Shri Yash Pal Khanna for being produced during the course of income-tax proceedings?
Ans. No photographs pertaining to the marriage of my son were handed over to Shri Yash Pal Khanna,
Q.9 Please state the nature of entries of deposits and withdrawals appearing in your Bank A/c Nos.3687 and 3688.
10 I.T.A. No. 211/Asr/2007 Assessment Year: 2001-02 Ans. The deposits mainly represent the maturity of my old FDRs in different banks. The withdrawals mainly represent the investments made by me in the purchase of land or other property. I affirm that no gifts have been made by me to anyone except the normal gifts below Rs.5000/ on marriages etc. I did not give any drafts of heaving amounts after receiving cash in lieu thereof except the amount of Rs. Nine lacs. Pertaining to Shri Yash Pal Khanna mentioned above. I am also providing you a photocopy of my American Passport as desired by you in the summons u/s 131.”
The above statements and answers in course of cross objection are directly in
contradiction to the contents of affidavits, statements, documentary evidences and
submissions filed by the assessee in support of his argument to prove the
genuineness of the gifts. It becomes apparently, very clear and obvious that the
genuineness of the gift and the creditworthiness of the donors, has never been
established in this case and the amount which has been transferred from donors bank
by way of drafts lacks creditworthiness.
In the instant case the bank drafts handed over as gifts amounts to Rs.9 lakhs (
Nine lakhs) which was also capitalized by the assessee ( as per his balance sheet )
and has been credited in the assessee bank account as gifts received, and the same
points towards bogus gifts for all practical purpose.
The explanation regarding the balance amount of cash movement amounting to
Rs. 2.50 lakhs as stated by the donor, is just a word of mouth (without any supporting
evidence) and cannot be relied upon.
11 I.T.A. No. 211/Asr/2007 Assessment Year: 2001-02 16. But strangely, we find that after elaborate investigation, enquiry and
verification conducted by the AO during assessment proceedings and elaborate
discussions in the assessment order (containing – 47 pages), we find that in the
assessment order passed u/s 143(3)/263, the AO, has not made any additions in
respect of the bogus gifts of Rs.9 lakhs.
In his own wisdom the AO has proceeded to make an addition of
Rs.11,50,000/- being the cash that is deposited in the bank account of the doner and by the donor on 19th December, 2000 and on 13th February, 2021 ( totaling Rs.11.50
lakhs ) , which means additions has been made in the hands of the assessee in respect
of cash credits in the books of a third party (the doner Mr. Gurdev Singh), thereby
leaving the bogus gifts of Rs.9 ( nine ) lakhs received by the assessee and capitalized
by him, completely untouched.
The relevant para no.23 of the assessment order is reproduced below:
“23. Since the assessee has failed to prove the source of cash amounting to Rs. 11,50,000/- which was given to Sh. Gurdev Singh for obtaining drafts, out of which Rs.2,50,000/- has been taken in cash and drafts of remaining amount, the only conclusion that is to be drawn is that entire amount of Rs. 11,50,000/- is of undisclosed nature and is assessable as income.”
12 I.T.A. No. 211/Asr/2007 Assessment Year: 2001-02 19. Thereby, the AO completed the assessment on a total income of Rs.12,85,690/-
by making an addition of Rs.11,50,000/- being the cash deposited by the donor in his
bank account.
The matter was carried in appeal before the first appellate authority where the
assessee has challenged the said addition on the ground that the AO has not made any
addition on account of bogus gifts received but the addition has been made
amounting to Rs.11,50,000/- being the cash deposited by the donors ( Mr Gurdev
Singh) in his own bank account and in such cases, the addition will be made in the
hands of the person in whose account the cash has been deposited . In the instant case
Mr Gurdev Singh is supposed to explain the source of the said deposit in his bank
A/c, to which the assessee is not concerned, and there is no evidence that the assessee
has handed over cash to Mr Gurdev Singh (except word of mouth).
However, the ld. first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal by
observing as follows:
“14.6 In the income tax matters, it is a well settled legal position that the decision may be drawn on preponderance of probabilities, as spelt out from the surrounding circumstances without essentially Insisting on conclusion proof as such, though general principles of law of evidence need appropriately be followed, for the reasons of proceeding being of the nature of judicial or quasi-judicial. In this case It has conclusively been proved that the story of gift was bogus and the surrounding circumstances, on which the A.O. has drawn the conclusion amply shows that the assessee had given his unaccounted cash to S. Gurdev Singh, who was required to launder this unaccounted money in the form of gift. While doing so, the A.O. has followed all cannons of natural justice and has observed the general
13 I.T.A. No. 211/Asr/2007 Assessment Year: 2001-02
principles of law of evidence appropriately. In the case of Jaspal Singh vs. CIT (2006) 205 CTR (P& H) 624, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has observed that "it is well settled that mere identification of donor and showing the gift amount through banking channel is not enough to prove genuineness of the gift. The assessee was required to establish that the donor had the means and the gift was genuine, for natural love and affection. The Hon'ble Court has also referred to the judgment in this regard in the case of Lal Chand Kalra vs. CIT 22 CTR (P&H) 135, judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Sajjan Dass & Sons vs. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 435 (Delhi), the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More, 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1999) 214 ITR 801.
14.7 From the facts of the case it is also clear that the Assessing Officer has clearly proved the nexus between the cash deposited in the bank account of S. Gurdev Singh and the alleged gift made to the appellant. The dates of the deposits and the dates of the Issuance of draft are immaterial. Whether it should be treated as unaccounted money in the hands of the donor is also immaterial at this juncture, because here the question is whether the appellant exchanged the alleged draft in the form of gift in lieu of cash that he had given to the alleged donor S. Gurdev Singh. In view of these facts and the circumstances of the case, and on the preponderance of probabilities and the surrounding circumstances, I hold that the Assessing Officer has conclusively proved that not only the gift was bogus and it was exchanged in lieu of cash but also that he gave a sum of Rs.11.50 lac his unaccounted money, to S. Gurdev Singh for making the gift. Therefore, I find no infirmities in the order of the Assessing Officer and his order deserves to be upheld. I order accordingly. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.”
Now, the assessee is before the Tribunal on the grounds contained in the
memorandum of appeal and in course of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee has
categorically stated that in the instant case he is not disputing or arguing against the
gifts received by the assessee from the donor because the said gift Rs. Nine Lakhs ,
has been accepted by the AO, because no additions has been made on account of “
bogus gifts”, received by the assessee. He further submitted that the addition made
by the Assessing Officer is because of cash deposited in the bank account of Mr
14 I.T.A. No. 211/Asr/2007 Assessment Year: 2001-02 Gurdev Singh (the donor), by the donor. He further submitted that the credit of
Rs.11,50,000/- which is disputed in this case were not credited in the books of the
assessee but the credit was in the account of Sh. Gurdev Singh (donor) and out of the
said amount, gift has been received by the assessee which is not disputed by the
Assessing Officer. In fact, the Assessing Officer has added back an amount of
Rs.11,50,000/- in the hands of the assessee which happens to be deposited by the
donor in his own bank account , and if the source of Rs.11,50,000/- is not explained
satisfactorily, then the addition should be made in the hands of Mr. Gurdev Singh in
whose bank account, the amount has been found to be credited and in support of his
argument he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
CIT v. K. Chinnathamban [2007] 292 ITR 682 (SC) and in the case of CIT v. Metal &
Metals of India [2007] 208 CTR (P&H) 457.
He further argued that onus to prove the source of deposits lies on the person
in whose name the deposit has been made and on the failure to explain the source of
such deposits, the money will be deemed to be the income of such person u/s 69A of
the Act. He further stated that since in the instant case, the deposits rested in the
name of the person appearing in the bank, there is no evidence to show that the
assessee has been placing his money with Mr Gurdev Singh ( except word of mouth )
and as such there is no question to link up all those amount with the books of the
assessee. He further relied on the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court judgment in the
15 I.T.A. No. 211/Asr/2007 Assessment Year: 2001-02 case of CIT v. Salek Chand Agarwal [2008] 300 ITR 426 (Alld. HC) and upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Smt. Shanta
Devi v. CIT reported 171 ITR 532 (P&H) and stated that the cash credit entry in the
book of firm in the name of partner cannot be assessed as income from undisclosed
source of the individual partner.
As such, relying on the above judgments, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted
that in the instant case, since, there is no evidence at all that the amount of
Rs.11,50,000/- was handed over by the assessee to the donor for depositing the same
in his bank account ( except word of mouth ), the assessee is not liable to explain the
source of such deposits in donor’s bank account. He further stated that in the instant
case, he has got nothing to argue in respect of gifts received by the assessee, because
the Assessing Officer has never made any addition on account of gift received by the
assessee, on the other hand, he has made an addition on account of cash deposit in
bank account of a third party for which the assesee is not liable to explain the source
and no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee.
As such, he prayed that the addition may please be deleted.
The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT ( A ) and submitted that in this
case the donor and donee are not related and are unknown persons and simply
movement of funds through bank drafts does not prove the genuineness of gifts , and
16 I.T.A. No. 211/Asr/2007 Assessment Year: 2001-02 in support he relied upon the following decisions of Hon’ble courts and tribunals ,
(1) Tirath Ram Gupta vs CIT [2008] 304 ITR 145 ( P & H ) , (2) E Ummer Bava vs CIT ( Kerala High Court ) ITA No 13 of 2015 dated 25th October, 2013 , which again
is on the question of creditworthiness of the person granting loans , where the
Hon’ble court upheld the additions made u/s 68 of the Act 61, on failure on the part
of the assessee to prove creditworthiness, ( 3 ) on the case of Jaspal Singh V CIT , (
Punjab and Haryana High Court ), [2007] 290 ITR page 306, where the Hon’ble
court has settled that mere identification of the donor and movement of funds
through bank is not enough to prove genuineness.
Thereafter, he relied on the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of P. Mohanakala
291 ITR 278 [2007] dated 15/05/2007, to submit that the sum credited in the bank
account of the assessee amounting to Rs.9 lakhs, the explanation offered by the
assessee regarding its nature and source, has been proved to be unsatisfactory and as
such he prayed that the addition may please be sustained.
We have heard the rival submissions and considered the materials on record
and we are perfectly in agreement with the Ld DR that the gift stated to have been
received by the assessee, from the donors, amounting to Rs. 9 lakhs (nine lakhs) , are
bogus gifts, the nature and source of which could not be satisfactory explained by the
assessee in spite of abundant opportunities in course of assessment proceedings (
17 I.T.A. No. 211/Asr/2007 Assessment Year: 2001-02 including opportunities of cross examination of witness being allowed ), and the
addition on this ground ( if any ) is to be sustained , but the pertinent question that
arises in this case is, where is the addition on account of bogus gifts in the assessment
order ? In absence of any specific addition being made by the AO in the assessment
order regarding bogus gifts of Rs. Nine lakhs, claimed to have been received by the
assessee, there is nothing for this tribunal to sustain or upheld.
In the instant case, the addition of Rs. 11.50 lakhs, has been made by the AO,
relating to the cash that is deposited by one Mr Gurdev Singh ( the donor ) in his own
bank account , and there is no evidence that this cash so deposited has been advanced
by the assessee (except the depositors word of mouth) and in absence of any
satisfactory explanation from the owner of the bank account , all deeming provisions
under the Act , whether section 68 and / or 69A , shall apply on the said Mr Gurdev
Singh , and the said amount cannot be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee.
Subsequently, the assessee has claimed to have received a gift of Rs. 9 nine
lakhs from the said Mr. Singh ( which is undoubtedly proved to be a bogus gift) and
should be taxed in the hands of the assessee, but unfortunately, there no addition on
account of bogus gifts in the assessment order, and this tribunal has no power to
improve upon the order of the AO , and cannot bring the said bogus gift to tax , in
18 I.T.A. No. 211/Asr/2007 Assessment Year: 2001-02 absence of any addition made by the AO himself, because it is not open to the
Tribunal to make out a new case neither for the assessee nor for the revenue.
As such , on the entire facts of the case we arrive at a logical conclusion that
the addition of Rs11.50 lakhs being the cash deposited by Mr Gurdev Singh ( alleged
donor in this case ) in his own bank account , cannot be assessed in the hands of the
assessee under the Act 61, in absence of any direct evidence to prove the fact that the
assessee has forwarded his own money to Mr. Singh for deposit of the same and as
such the said addition cannot be legally sustained.
As such the addition is to be deleted, and the appeal is allowed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate
Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 07.10.2025
Sd/- Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order
