Gurcharan Singh v. Commisioner Of Income Tax, Ludhiana And Anr

419 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH fe aITA No. 138 of 2001DECIDED ON: FEBRUARY 12, 2020 GURCHARAN SINGH VERSUS APPELLANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA AND ANR RESPONDENTS CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present:Mr. Mukul Gupta, Advocate forMr. Alok Mittal, Advocatefor the appellant, Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Sr. Standing Counsel withMs. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counselfor the respondent-Income Tax Department. AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral): ++++ By this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (forshort ‘the Act’), appellant has challenged the order of the authority below whereby ithad disallowed certain gifts which the appellant-assessee had allegedly received. | 2 One of the gift of|=60,000/- was received from one Sh. Hikayat Aliwho was an NRI. It is undisputed that there was no relation between the appellantand the alleged donor and the only explanation given by the appellant was that thealleged donor wasa friend of his. | 3.In the circumstances the facts of the case are covered by the decisionof this Court rendered in ITA No. 72 of 1999, decided on 22.11.2013, titled asShri Hanuman Dass vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar and another;wherein, this Court held as follows:- ‘Taking up the case in hand, even when the donor had themeans to make the gifts, there being neither any relationship nor therebeing any circumstance to show natural love and affection of thedonorfor the donee nor there being any occasion to make such gifts ITA No. 138 of 2001 -)- to the assessee and the authority ofjurisdictional High Court beingagainst the assessee, the authority cited by the assessee asCommissioner of Income Tax v. R.S. Stbal>(2004) 269 ITR 429doesnot support the case of the appellant. Thus, there is no perversity orimpropriety in the impugned order and sequelly the same 1s upheld. Consequently, there being no merit in the appeal, theSame 1§ dismissed. 4As regards the second gift of 419,000/- from one Sohan Singh, in thiscase the Commissioner (Appeals) had deleted the addition by holding that SohanSingh was a first cousin of the appellant and the money has been transferred throughbank. The Tribunal, however, noticed that the appellant had furnished only aphotostat copy of gift deed and when the AO wanted to record his statement forverification the assessee did not appear before the A.O. 5,In the circumstances, no fault can be found with the finding of theTribunal that the mere fact that the amount has been received through Bank byitself would not prove the identity, credit worthiness of the donor or the genuineness of the gift. 6 Resultanly, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law qT 1SeS. vaDismissed. JAJAY TEWARITJUDGE JAVNEESH JHINGAN]JUDGE FEBRUARY 12, 2020 sham1. Whether speaking/ reasonedYes /No2. Whether reportableYes/No