CIT v. Mrs. Sunita Vachani

184 ITR 121High Court1990#10287 most cited

What is CIT v. Mrs. Sunita Vachani authority for?

Gifts received in India from strangers abroad will not be considered the assessee's income unless there is tangible evidence beyond suspicion to prove the contrary, even if the amounts are large.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mrs. Sunita Vachani · 184 ITR 121 · gifts from abroad · unexplained money · cash credits · burden of proof · genuineness of gifts · foreign remittances · tangible evidence · suspicion · income from other sources

Judgments citing CIT v. Mrs. Sunita Vachani

ACIT, Cir-1(3), Surat vs. Pravin Pannalal Shah, Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 289/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.289/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Pravin Pannalal Shah Lal Bunglow, Athwalines, Income-Tax, Circle-1(3, Vs. Surat-395007 Room No.301, 3Rd Floor, Anavil Business Centre, Hajira Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrps 1045 H (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ng movable or immovable property, the transfer should be voluntary and should be made without consideration of any money." ITA No.289/SRT/2022 A.Y. 14-15 Pravin P Shah (iii) The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mrs. Sunita Vachani - reported in 184 ITR 121 - observed: “The Tribunal has examined the evidence which was available on the record and has arrived at the aforesaid findings. 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 t…

M/S. Vpa Civilcon (P) Ltd., Indore vs. Pr. CIT-2, Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 864/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri C.P. Rawka and Shri Venus Rawka, CAsFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 263Section 263(1)

…ourt Decision in the case of CIT vs. Shamshuddin Manzoor Hague (172 ITR 696) in which it has been held that there was no ground for doubt in the transaction. Similar view has been taken by Honourable Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mrs Sunita Bachani (184 ITR 121, 123). Reference is further invited to Honourable Delhi High Court Decision in case of CIT vs. Stellar Investments Ltd (192 ITR 287, 288). In view of the forgoing paras and taking into account the nature of transaction, your honor may appreciate that there is no case for revision as the credit entry is on account of balance amount payable.” 3.…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M.S.Aggarwal

ITA - 169 / 2005HC Delhi23 Apr 2018
Section 132Section 158Section 260

…y existing movable or immovable property, the transfer should be voluntary and should be made without consideration of any money.‖ 39. At this stage, we may also refer to the observations of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunita Vacchani 184 ITR 121 as refereed by the Id. Counsel. The Hon‘ble high Court observed, ―The Tribunal has examined the evidence which was available on the record and has arrived at the aforesaid findings. 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 s…

Sh. Baldev Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2471/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Baldev Singh, Vs Dcit, Prop. M/S Madaan Plasstic Industry, Circle 27(1), A-71, Naraina Industrial Area, New Delhi. Phase-I, New Delhi. (Pan: Aarps7097L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri G.S. Kohli, Ca Respondent By : Shri S.K. Jain, Dr Date Of Hearing: 9.3.2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 8.6.2017 Order

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Kohli, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR
Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2005-06 Baldev Singh, vs DCIT, Prop. M/s Madaan Plasstic Industry, Circle 27(1), A-71, Naraina Industrial Area, New Delhi. Phase-I, New Delhi. (PAN: AARPS7097L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri G.S. Kohli, CA Respondent by : Shri S.K. Jain, DR Date of hearing: 9.3.2017 Date of pronouncement: 8.6.2017 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT (A)-XXVIII, New Delhi vide…

Sh. Kuljit Singh Arora (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2843/DEL/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2017AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 148

…oath, confirmed gifts made, established their old relations with assessee and proved their capacity to make gifts – Whether on facts, Tribunal was justified in deleting impugned addition made by Assessing Officer – Held, Yes. 2. CIT vs. Sunita Vachani (Mrs.) 184 ITR 121 (Del) In our opinion, the Tribunal had, on merits, come to the conclusion that the gifts were genuine. This is a pure question of fact. The Tribunal has examined the evidence which was available on file 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…

Raj Bala, Delhi vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2008/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Smt. Raj Bala, Village Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Mandola Loni, H-5, West 2(2), Ghaziabad Jyoti Nagar, Loni Road, Delhi Gir/Pan :Aanpr2043K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. C.S. Anand, Adv. Respondent By Sh. V.P. Mishra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 27.07.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25/02/2013 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad, For Assessment Year 2006-07, Raising Following Grounds: I. That On The Facts Of The Case & Under The Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Rejecting The Assessee’S Claim That The Learned A.O. Had Wrongly/Illegally Assumed Jurisdiction To Issue Notice U/S 148. Ii. That On The Facts Of The Case & Under The Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 4,08,000/-, Made By The Learned A.O. U/S 69 In The Hands Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2006-07

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 69

…discharge the onus of proving the creditworthiness of the donors. 1 he Id. CIT(A) held the gifts to be genuine and the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Id. CIT(A). The Hon’ble Court considered the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Mrs. Sunita Vachani (1990) 184 ITR 121 (Del), CIT Vs. R.S. Sibal (2004) 269 ITR 429 (Del) and Sajan Dass & Sons (2003) 264 ITR 435 (Del). The following observations from the decision in the case of R.S. Sibal (supra) were reproduced :- “There is no quarrel with the preposition that a mere identification of the donor and showing the movement of the gift amount through banking channels…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs. Sudhir Budhraja

ITA/59/2003HC Delhi13 Oct 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

For Appellant: Mr Dileep Shivpuri, Senior Standing CounselFor Respondent: Dr Rakesh Gupta with Ms Poonam Ahuja
Section 133ASection 260ASection 44ASection 68

…the donor. The Tribunal’s findings are, essentially, findings of fact and there is little scope to interfere with the same unless it is concluded that the findings are perverse in law and/or are not based on any material. In CIT v. Sunita Vachani: (1990) 184 ITR 121 (Del) this court held that : “in our opinion, the Tribunal had, on merits, come to the conclusion that the 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 aforesaid finding. Even though it may be surprising as to how large sums of money are…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Sudhir Budhraja

ITA-59/2003HC Delhi13 Oct 2015
For Appellant: Mr Dileep Shivpuri, Senior Standing CounselFor Respondent: Dr Rakesh Gupta with Ms Poonam Ahuja
Section 133ASection 260ASection 44ASection 68

…the donor. The Tribunal’s findings are, essentially, findings of fact and there is little scope to interfere with the same unless it is concluded that the findings are perverse in law and/or are not based on any material. In CIT v. Sunita Vachani: (1990) 184 ITR 121 (Del) this court held that : “in our opinion, the Tribunal had, on merits, come to the conclusion that the 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 aforesaid finding. Even though it may be surprising as to how large sums of money are…

Sarita Aggarwal

ITA/133/2003HC Delhi04 Feb 2015

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Who By Order Dated 27Th February, 1998, Deleted The Addition After Taking On Record Additional Evidence. Revenue On Appeal, Has Succeeded Before 2015:Dhc:1152-Db

Section 122Section 260A

…14th November, 2005; CIT versus Mrs. Sunita Vachani, 2015:DHC:1152-DB ITA 133/2003 Page 11 of 14 ITA No.101/1999 (sic, 1989) decided on 5th February, 1990 (reported as [1990] 184 ITR 121 (Del)); CIT versus Orient Enterprises, ITA No.91/1987 (sic), decided on 10th January, 1990 (reported as [1990] 185 ITR 156 (Del)); and, CIT versus Shri Kulwant Rai, ITA No.86/2006 decided on 13th February, 2007 (reported as [2007] 291 ITR 36 (Del)), we perceive proceed on their own facts. In R.S. Sibal (supra), it was specifically mentioned…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. Anil Kumar

ITA/875/2006HC Delhi13 Mar 2007

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.CHATURVEDI

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 260ASection 263Section 68

…ertificate confirming the payment by pay order from the NRE accounts of the two donors and in support of his contention, learned counsel cited two decisions of our own High Court, Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sunita Vachani (1990) 184 ITR 121 and Commissioner of Income Tax vs.R.S.Sibal (2004) 269 ITR 429. 9. The question to be seen here is as to whether the identity of donors has been established and whether they had the capacity to make such a gift or not. In Commissioner of Income Tax vs.R.S.Sibbal (supra), it has been laid down: “ There is no quarrel with the prep…