Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-Ii v. Shri Arun Kumar Kothari

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANJAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.80/2010 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-IIVs.Shri Arun Kumar Kothari Date of Judgment: SEPTEMBER 07, 2012 PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRA'-HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAINI Mr. R.B. Mathur, for the appellantMr. Naresh Gupta, for the respondent BY THE COURT(Per Jain J.) Reportable Heard learned counsel for the parties.2.The Revenue has preferred this IncomeTax Appeal under Section 260-A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 challenging the order dated 30[th]September, 2009 of Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Jaipur Bench 'B', Jaipur, wherebyTribunal, while, dismissing the appeal of theRevenue affirmed the order of Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) deleting the addition ofRs.30 Lacs made by the Assessing Officer, onaccount of unexplained gifts. 3.Briefly stated, the facts of the caseare that the Assessing Officer vide itsAssessment Order dated 10[th] November, 2008relating to Assessment Year 2006-07 disallowed the three gifts received by Assessee from hisbrothers amounting to Rs.30 Lacs on the groundthat the Assessee has not proved thecreditworthiness of the gifts and the same havebeen given on account of love and affection andfurther that there was no occasion for givingthe gifts. Consequently, Assessing Officeradded the said amount of gifts as income andlevied the income tax on the same. 4.Being aggrieved with the order of Assessment, the Assessee preferred an appeal.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II,Jaipur vide order dated 25[th] March, 2009allowed the appeal and deleted the addition ofRs. 30 Lacs made by Assessing Officer onaccount of unexplained gifts. Thereafter,Revenue preferred an appeal before theTribunal, but the same was dismissed. Hence thepresent appeal has been preferred on behalf ofthe Revenue. 5.Submission of Shri R.B. Mathur learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of appellant isthat the three gifts worth Rs.30 Lacs weregiven to Assessee by his brothers without anyoccasion, therefore, the same were rightlydisallowed by the Assessing Officer. Hesubmitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) as well as the Tribunal bothcommitted an illegality in deleting amount of Rs. 30 Lacs. He, therefore, submitted thatorder of Assessing Officer be restored. Noother argument has been advanced by ShriMathur, learned counsel for the appellant. 6.Learnedcounselfortherespondent/assessee supported the order passedby the Tribunal as well as Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) and submitted thatidentity, creditworthiness of the donor andgenuineness of the gifts duly proved byAssessee are questions of facts and both theauthorities below have recorded a concurrentfinding of facts, which cannot be and shouldnot be intereferred by this Court. He submittedthat no substantial question of law is involvedin this second appeal. Therefore, it is liableto be dismissed. 7.We have considered the submissions oflearend counsel for the parties and examinedthe reasons assigned by Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals) as well as Tribunal, for deletingthe amount of Rs. 30 Lacs towards so calledunexplained gifts, added by Assessing Officer. 8.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has considered all factual as well aslegal aspects of the case in detail and hasobserved that so far as creditworthiness of thedonors is concerned, the Assessee had gone tofile evidence before the Assessing Officer on 7.We have considered the submissions oflearend counsel for the parties and examinedthe reasons assigned by Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals) as well as Tribunal, for deletingthe amount of Rs. 30 Lacs towards so calledunexplained gifts, added by Assessing Officer. 8.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has considered all factual as well aslegal aspects of the case in detail and hasobserved that so far as creditworthiness of thedonors is concerned, the Assessee had gone tofile evidence before the Assessing Officer on 11.11.2008, the date fixed for the same by him,but the Assessing Officer refused to accept thesame. Therefore, Assessee sent the relevantdocuments such as copy of Bank Accounts, returnof income and other relevant documents ofdonors with regard to their creditworthiness,through registered post to the AssessingOfficer. Copies of these documents wereconsidered by the appellate authority and thesame documents were again placed on record inthe paper-books filed before Tribunal at PageNos. 11 to 13. These documents are gift deeds,bank accounts of the donors, Bank statement ofthe donors, directorship/partnership, income ofthe donors and passports of the donors. LearnedCommissioner also considered that donors wereNRI and they were brothers of the Assessee. Inthese circumstances, the learned Commissionerwas satisfied about creditworthiness of thedonors as well as genuineness of the gift deedsand accepted the claim in respect of gifts, asthere was no reason to doubt on the identityand creditworthiness of the donors and thegenuineness of the gifts, as expressed by theAssessing Officer. 9.The finding of the Commissioner asappellate authority was quoted by Tribunal inits order impugned in this appeal. LearnedTribunal after considering the factual and legal aspects of the matter affirmed thefinding of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) and dismissed the appeal filed by theRevenue. Para 5 of the order of the Tribunal isreproduced as under:- “5.The first appellate order on theissue is reasoned one to which weconcur with in view of the decisionsof Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Courtin the case of CIT v/s Padam SinghChauhan 215 CTR 303 (Raj.) and in thecase of Nek Kumar v/s ACIT 274 ITR 575(Raj.) & Ors. In the case of CIT v/sPadam Singh Chauhan (supra) theHon'ble Jurisdictional High Court hasbeen pleased to hold that there is nolegal basis to assume that torecognize the gift to be genuine,there should be any blood relationshipor any close relationship, between thedonor and the donee. Instances are notrare, when strangers made gift, out ofvery many considerations, includingarising out of love, affection andsentiments. When the assessee hasproduced the copies of the fit deedsand the affidavits of the donors, inthe absence of anything to show thatthe act of assessee in claiming fitwas an act by way of money laundering,simply because he happens to receivefits, it cannot be said that, that isrequired to be added in his income,held the Hon'ble High Court. The caseof present assessee before us on theissue stands on better footing asherein the donors are brothers of theassessee wherein there is no room todoubt love and affection amongst themto make the gifts. Besides, theassessee had furnished fit deedsstating the relationship with thedonors and that the gifts were madeout of natural love and affection,bank accounts of the donors and theirpassports to support the genuinenessof the claimed gifts. Contents ofthese documents have not beendisputed. Under these circumstance, weare of the view that the Ld.CIT(A) hasrightly accepted the claimed gifts ofRs.30 Lacs with direction to the AO to delete the addition made on thisaccount. The first appellate order onthe issue is thus upheld.” delete the addition made on thisaccount. The first appellate order onthe issue is thus upheld.” 10.From the above, it is clear that theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well asTribunal both were satisfied with regard toidentify and creditworthiness of the donors andgenuineness of the gifts. Learned Tribunal alsosatisfied that there is no room to doubt aboutlove and affection of the donors with theassessee as donors were brothers of theassessee. Therefore, gifts could have beengiven without any occasion and only for thelove and affection with the assessee. 11.After considering the reasons assignedby the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) aswell as Tribunal for deleting the amount ofgifts, which was wrongly added by the AssessingOfficer. We are satisfied that the reasonsassigned by Tribunal as well as Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) are absolutely justifiedand legal and no interference in the same iscalled for. Learned Tribunal has also reliedupon judgments of this Court reported in CITv/s Padam Singh Chauhan 215 CTR 303 (Raj.) andin the case of Nek Kumar v/s ACIT 274 ITR 575(Raj.) & Ors.. -12.This Court inCommissioner of Incometax v. Ram Dev Kumar Chitlangia, reported in ` (2009) 315 ITR 435 held that, whether the giftwas genuine would essentially be a question offact and finding of act recorded in this behalfcannot be intereferred with. 13.After considering submissions oflearned counsel for the parties, we are of theview that genuineness of the gifts has beenaccepted by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) as well as Appellate Tribunal. Theidentity and creditworthiness of the donorshave also been accepted by both theauthorities. These are questions of facts andthere is a concurrent finding of fact by boththe authorities below and no illegality orperversity in the finding recorded by both theauthorities below has been pointed out by thelearned counsel for the Revenue. The saidfinding of fact of both the authorities belowcannot be interferred with by this Court. 14.The Income-tax Appeal before thisCourt lies only on substantial question of law.Since, no substantial question of law isinvolved in this appeal, therefore, it isliable to be dismissed and is, hereby,dismissed in limine. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I),J. (ARUN MISHRA),CJ. “All corrections made in the judgment/order have beenincorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.” B.K. SHRIVASTAVAPRIVATE SECRETARY