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
…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 the gift and since the claim of a gift is made…
