TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (11) TMI 494
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... -do- 8,000 10/96 -do- -do- 22,000 11/96 -do- -do- 22,000 370/95 Nanak S. Khanuja S. 9(1)(a ) 10,000 371/95 Harvinder S. Khanuja -do- 7,000 372/95 Gopal Krishna Agarwal -do- 7,000 373/95 Narendra Khanuja -do- 7,000 Appeal No. Name of Appellant Provision contravened Penalty Amount 374/95 Narendra Khanuja S. 9(1)(a ) 12,000 375/95 Vijay Kumar Jain -do- 7,000 376/95 -do- -do- 8,000 2. Except for the name of the parties and the amount involved in the alleged contravention, all these appeals arise out of similar facts and involve common issues. It is, therefore, convenient to dispose of all these appeals by a common order. 3. The applications for dispensing with the pre-deposit of penalty imposed on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of contravention of section 9(1)(a), read with section 64(2), of the Act. 5. Since the appellants in Appeal Nos. 370-376 of 1995 are held guilty of the contraventions of the main provisions of the Act, namely, section 9(1)(a), I propose to take up those appeals for consideration in the first instance. 6. Shri B.B. Khare, advocate, who appeared for all the appellants in Appeal Nos. 370-376 of 1995, submitted at the outset that he would not press the point of natural justice as that may lead to remand of the cases resulting in further harassment to the appellants. He submitted that his main argument is that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the appellants made the payments to the non-resident as alleged. On the other ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Dr. Shamsuddin submitted that the story of gift as put-forth by the appellants has been rightly rejected by the learned Adjudicating Officer for the reasons given by him while dealing with the evidence of J.R. Verma in Appeal No. 370 of 1995 and of Poonja (the remaining appeals). He submitted that since the cheques were not in the nature of gifts, there can be only one inference that the appellants have made payment of equivalent amount to the concerned non-residents for receiving the cheques. He further submitted that since Poonja and J.R. Verma had issued large number of cheques from their NRE accounts in favour of persons not related to him, the issuing of cheques cannot be without consideration and it is common knowledge that there ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned Adjudicating Officer assumed was contrary to the legislative history of the gifts allowed under the law by non-residents in favour of resident Indians. He referred to the provisions of section 5 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, whereunder initially the gifts were allowed to close members of the family only. Later on, the provision was liberalised to allow gifts made in favour of any person. But when large-scale gifts were made, in accordance with the Government's legislative policy of augmenting foreign exchange reserves the provision was further amended in 1993 to permit making of gift only once. Shri Khare submitted that it is clear from the legislative history of section 5 that the Legislature never intended that Indian donee of non-reside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have carefully gone through the relied upon documents and considered reply to the show-cause notice furnished by Shri B.B. Khare, advocate at the time of personal hearing, wherein he had (sic), inter alia, stated that he had received gift cheque of Rs. 1,25,000 and Rs. 1,11,000 issued by Shri Rajinder Kumar Poonia from his NRE Account with Canara Bank, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi. He further stated that no payments were made to Shri Rajinder Kumar Poonia or equivalent amount of the cheque with any premium. I find that Shri Rajinder Kumar Poonia is a person resident outside India and making payment to or for the credit of a person resident in India without any general or specific exemption of the Reserve Bank of India is an offence under secti....