TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 680
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 2,65,000 (In I. T. A. No. 158 of 2006) and Rs. 4,97,400 (in I. T. A. No. 202 of 2006) allegedly received by the assessees as foreign gifts? 3. Let us first advert to the facts of the case. 4. In I. T. A. No. 99 of 2006 a sum of Rs. 1,38,437 and Rs. 5,30,000, respectively, received by the assessee, Narinder Kumar Sekhri from S. P. Amar and Mohinder Handa, claimed to be foreign gifts are in dispute. Though, the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jalandhar (to be referred as, "the CIT(A)") doubted the veracity of these entries and directed to add the same in the income of the assessee but the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (for brevity, "the Tribunal"), found the same as genuine and ordered its deletion. 5. In I. T. A. No. 158 of 2006, the assessee, Chaman Lal Sekhri, filed the return for the assessment year 1996-97 showing the income of Rs. 6,02,540. Explanation in respect of certain entries and its source, including an entry of 10,000 Canadian Dollars (equivalent to Rs. 2,65,000), in dispute in the present case, was sought from the assessee. The assessee replied and averred that he received the said amount from Mohinder H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 10000 US Dollars from Sh. Mohinder Handa, the son-in-law of the assessee. The assessee filed confirmation of the donor which is on record. However, a perusal of the group record shows that the donor has been working with General Motors since 1976 and his yearly salary in January, 1997, was 57524 Canadian Dollars. Further perusal of the record of the assessee and his family members reveals some very important facts which cannot be overlooked at this stage : Sh. Mohinder Handa has sent not only 10,000 Canadian dollars to the assessee but has also allegedly remitted the following amounts to the other family members also Narinder Sekhri (son of assessee) 20,000 Canadian Dollars Subhash Sekhri (son of assessee) 10,000 Canadian $ 7,000 US$ Chaman Lal (assessee) 10,000 Canadian $ Manoj Sekhri (grandson of assessee) 5000 US$ Thus, in the year under consideration the family as a whole has claimed that it has received gifts of 40,000 Canadian dollars and 12000 US dollars. In rupee terms th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion would accept a genuine gift out of the income of his daughter, son-in-law and his grand-son. In these circumstances and following the order in the case of Sh. Narinder Sekhri (supra), the addition of Rs. 2,65,000 made by the Assessing Officer is upheld." 10. Similar observations were made by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) while ordering additions in respect of amounts involved in I. T. A. Nos. 99 and 202 of 2006. 11. The Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) doubted the frequent transfer of money by the donors as substantial portion of the income was being passed on to the assessees, without any occasion. These findings were brushed aside by the Tribunal and it relied on the decision rendered in the case of Narinder Kumar Sekhri, which is a subject matter of I. T. A. No. 99 of 2006. In that case, what impressed the Tribunal was that on account of the search and seizure conducted upon the assessees, an occasion arose for the relatives residing abroad and since they had the capacity, they had extended the financial help to save them from the financial crunch. The Tribunal found the explanation valid. Further, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; "9. The matter of receipt of foreign gifts even earlier had engaged attention of the courts. This court in Lall Chand Kalra v. CIT [1981] 22 CTR (P&H) 135 had held that NRI gift from a stranger was neither genuine nor valid. This judgment was followed in Jaspal Singh v. CIT (I. T. A. No. 256 of 2006) decided on September 15, 2006 [2007] 290 ITR 306 (P&H) by this court as also judgment in Sajjan Das and Sons v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 435 (Delhi) by the hon'ble Delhi High Court. Recently, this court in I. T. A. No. 498 of 2005 decided on February 7, 2011 titled CIT v. Puneet Chugh had taken the same view holding as under : "We are of the view that the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) 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. His financial capacity was not established. His bank statement was not produced. The Tri....