AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 467
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3. 2. This appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was justified in law in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue whereby sustaining the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.1,00,000/- made by the A.O. On account of unexplained and ingenuine credit in the capital account of the partner, Sh. Sat Pal Singh appearing in the books of account of the assessee in the asstt. Year 1989-90, holding that no such addition was required to be made in the hands of the assessee?" 3. During the assessment for the assessment year 1989-90, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter mentioned as, the AO) had notice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee that not only the donor but even the source as also the mode of the gift had been identified and explained, had deleted the addition of Rs.1 lac made to income of the assessee. Observations of the CIT(A) in this respect were as under: "On a reference to the assessment records, it is observed that the A.O. Had obtained a copy of N.R.E. A/c. Of Sh. Harjit Singh from the said Central Bank of India wherein this transaction of giving Rs. 1 lakh to Sh. Satpal Singh is only reflected. The A.O. Also recorded the statement of Sh. Harjit Singh, the donor who confirmed having gifted this amount to Sh. Satpal Singh. In view of this evidence on record, which remains uncontroverted the observation of the A.O. that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed and the appeal of the Revenue stands disposed of accordingly." 6. We have heard counsel for the parties while going through the paper book. 7. By now, there does not remain any dispute that credit of Rs.1 lac in the capital account of Sat Pal Singh, partner of the assessee firm was not through a genuine gift, there are following uncontroverted aspects of the issue: (i) The donee though had very close relations including his brother-in-law residing in Washington for the last so many years had not received any gift from any of them ever. Donor Harjit Singh is resident of a village in District Hoshiarpur. He is brother of husband of sister of wife of the donee and was living in Kuwait and thus is distant relati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT [1981] 22 CTR 135 had held that NRI gift from a stranger was neither genuine nor valid. This judgment was followed in Jaspal Singh v. CIT [2007] 290 ITR 306 by this Court as also judgment in Sajan Dass & Sons v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 435 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Recently, this Court in ITA No.498 of 2005 decided on 7.2.2011 titled CIT v. Puneet Singh had taken the same view holding as under: "We are of the view that the Assessing Officer and the CIT (A) were justified in holding that the gift in question was bogus and the Tribunal committed patent error in accepting the gift as genuine. Admittedly, the donor had no relationship with the assessee. He had no occasion to give the gift. He was not produced. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ral love and affection of the donor for the donee nor there being any occasion to make such gifts to the assessee and the authority of jurisdictional High Court being against the assessee, the authority cited by the assessee as CIT v. R.S. Sibal [2004] 269 ITR 429 (Delhi) does not support the case of the appellant. Thus, there is no perversity or impropriety in the impugned order and sequelly the same is upheld." 11. Though the Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the gift was not genuine but refused to accept the plea of the revenue for addition of amount of Rs.1 lac in income of the assessee firm holding that credit of Rs.1 lac was in the capital account of the partner of the assessee firm and thus addition could not be made to the ....