Commissioner of Income-Tax v. R.S. Sibal

Dristi Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Ghaziabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

…by the AO being undisclosed income claimed by the appellant as trading profit u/s 68. The AO has rightly placed reliance on Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC), McDowel & Co. Ltd. 154 ITR 148 (SC), CIT vs. RS Sibbal 269 ITR 429, Delhi, Sajan Das and Sons vs. CIT 264 ITR 435, Delhi, DC Rastogi vs. ACIT 57 ITD 295, Delhi. What needs to be considered is whether the transaction is a device to avoid tax and whether the transaction is such that judicial process may accord its approval to it. It has been held that judicial process can remove the ways to find the real nature of…

Achla Dhawan vs. Income Tax Officer

The appeal of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. K. Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…any courts cases in support of contention that gift is genuine. 4.7.1 Some of the recent case laws can be briefly analysed here, so as to observe that in those cases, preponderence of evidence was in favour of the assessee; for example, in case of R.S. Sibal, 269 ITR 429 (Del.), only ground on which the genuiness of the gift had been doubted by AO was alleged failure on the part of the assessee to establish his relationship with the donor; otherwise all particulars had been given in respect of genuineness of gift. In case of Nek Kumar, 274 ITR 575 (Rajasthan), donor had given affidavit and declaration and inspite…

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

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

…by taking loans. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the order of the Tribunal upholding the order of the CIT (Appeals) deleting the additions on account of the said gifts. 5.6 In CIT versus RS Sibal reported in 269 ITR 429, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of the Department by observing that no question of law much less a substantial question of law arose when the only ground on which the genuineness of the gifts had been doubted was the alleged failure I.T.A. No. 2471/Del/2014 Assessment year 2005-06 on the part of the assessee to establish rel…

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…assessee. He contended that the entire addition is made based on surmise and conjectures. He relied on the following case laws :- i) CIT vs. Ms. Mayawati (2011) 338 ITR 0563 ii) CIT vs. Vrindavan Farms (P) Ltd. ITA 84/2015 iii) CIT vs. R.S. Sibal (2004) 269 ITR 429 (Del) 5. He further submitted that this is a case of reopening of assessment and the primary onus of proving that there was an escapement of income, in a case of reopening of assessment, lies with the revenue and that this onus has not been discharged. For this preposition he relied upon the following case laws : ITA 2843/Del/2015 AY 2003-04…

Sh. Ashok Kumar Chauhan, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri L.P. Sahu

…of Rs.15 lacs vide letter dated 29.12.2009 during the assessment proceedings itself by giving its statements also, we do not find any justification to interfere with the decision of ld. CIT(A) on this count. The decision in the case of CIT vs. R.S. Sibal, 269 ITR 429 relied on by the assessee is not applicable to the present case, as in the instant case, the assessee in the assessment proceedings by way of written statement has admitted to have received the bogus gifts and that it was his own money received back. Such facts are not involved in the reported case. Accordingly, this ground of assessee’s appeal…

Raj Bala, Delhi vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

…hiness 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 is not sufficient to prove the genuineness of…

Sarita Aggarwal

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

…emphasis supplied) 15. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to two decisions of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi versus Mayawati (2011) 338 ITR 563 (Del) and Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi versus R.S. Sibal [2004] 269 ITR 429 (Del). In Mayawati (supra), there were registered gift deeds in respect of immoveable properties and the third addition related to gift of Rs.2 lacs by way of cheque from a third person. Documents in form of gift deeds, affidavit of the donors, bank account details etc. were filed and all the donors had appeared before the authorities and…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. Anil Kumar

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

…unts 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 preposition that a mere identification of the donor and show…