TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 287
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l') in ITA No. 112(ASR)/2002 and 193(ASR)/2002 relating to assessment year 1998-99. 2. The revenue had raised two substantial questions of law, pertaining to the order of the Tribunal regarding foreign gifts of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 9,58,759/-. It has been pointed that the question regarding the transaction of Rs. 5,00,000/- made by Pritam Singh in favour of the assessee was remanded by the Tribunal to the Assessing Officer and is pending before the CIT(A) and it does not survive in the present appeal. 3. On 12.5.2006 the instant appeal was admitted only to consider the second question of law, which reads as under:- "Whether on the facts and in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ertain additional facts, as provided under Rule 46-A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962(for short, 'the Rules') were pleaded before the CIT(A) by the assessee to show the genuineness of the amounts received from the donors, on which the comments of the Assessing Officer were called. 7. Relating to the sum of Rs. 1,82,835/- received from Jagdish Vijh, the Assessing Officer gave its report dated 13.03.2002 that the donor did have good family relations with the donee and he was financially well and the amount was not big for the donor and the gift was through the banking channel. Consequently, the CIT(A), relying upon the report of Assessing Officer held this amount as genuine and ordered its deletion from the income of the assessee. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1,00/- + Rs. 1,91,000/- + Rs. 3,93,924/- + 1,82,835/-), the assessee and revenue filed separate appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue and confirmed the deletion of the amount of Rs. 9,58,759/- while partly allowing the appeal of the assessee and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh about the capacity and credit worthiness of transaction of Rs. 5,00,000/- made by Pritam Singh in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal also directed the assessee to produce Pritam Singh before the Assessing Officer. This appeal is by the revenue. 12. As noticed above, the issue regarding genuineness of transaction of Rs. 5,00,000/- is pending before CIT(A), therefore, the same is not being taken ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TA No. 12 of 2000, titled as The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar Vs. M/s Udham Singh & Sons, Goraya, decided on 20.12.2013, this Court while dealing with a situation where a gift was received by the assessee from a non-resident Indian with whom the assessee had no relationship had relied upon various decisions rendered on the issue and had held as under:- " 9. The matter of receipt of foreign gifts even earlier had engaged attention of the courts. This Court in Lal Chand Kalra Versus 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 Versus CIT (ITA No.256 of 2006) decided on 15.9.2006 by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e donor had the means and the gift was genuine, for natural love and affection. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of this Court in Lal Chand Kalra v. CIT, 22 CTR 135, judgment of Delhi High Court in Sajan Dass and Sons v. CIT, (2003) 264 ITR 435, CIT, West Bengal II v. Durga Prasad More, (1971)82 ITR 540 and Sumanti Dayal v. CIT, (1995) 214 ITR 801." 10. Even this Bench in ITA No.72 of 1999 titled Shri Hanuman Dass Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar and another decided on 22.11.2013 held as under: "Taking up the case in hand, even when the donor had the means to make the gifts, there being neit....