Ita/142/2004 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Subhash Chander Sekhri

ITA No. 142 of 2004| IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANAAl CHANDIGARH ITA No. 142 of 2004 (O&M)Date of Decision: 29.01.2014 Tne Commissioner of Income Tax-(Central), Ludhiana ... Appellant VS, Sh. Subhash Chander Sekhri ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY, Present: Mr. Vivek Setni Advocatefor the appellant. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate forMr. S.K. Mukni, Advocate for the respondent. | +++ ANITA CHAUDHRY, J. 1.In this case, the following foreign remittance in favourof the assessee during the assessment year 1994-95 are in dispute:- Tne Assessing Officer doubted the said entries andconsequently ordered its addition in the income of the assesseevide order dated 28.72.1997. The Commissioner of Income Ta(Appeals), Jalandhar(to be referred as, ‘the CIT(A)) vide orderdated 1.10.1997 while relying upon its order rendered in the caseof Manoj Kumar Sekhri dated 3.9.1997 ordered the deletion of ITA No. 142 of 20049) impugned additions. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AmritsarBench, Amritsar (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) also by relying uponits order passed in ITA No. 619(ASR)/1997 dated 13.11.2003 inManoj Kumar Seknhris case upheld the deletion and dismissed tneappeal of the revenue. ? In our considered view, the following question of lawwould emerge from the order of the Tribunal for determination bythis Court: - “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the CIT(A) as well as Tribunal werecorrect in law in deleting the addition. o<0,69,027/- allegealy received by the assesseeas foreign gifts? 3.It is a matter of record that the order passed by theTribunal in Manoj Kumar Seknris case (Supra) Nas been set asideto the extent of the gift made by a stranger in favour of theassessee vide order of even date passed in ITA No. 101 of 2004,while the foreign remittance in favour of the assessee pertainingto the assessment year 1996-97 made by donor Moninder Handa,whicn were tne subject matter of ITA No. 202 of 2006, have beenneid to be not genuine. Hence, applying the same principles andreasons, we find that the alleged foreign gifts in favour of theassessee by the strangers and distant relation are not genuine.We, therefore, answer the question in favour of the revenue andagainst the assessee. Tne appeal is accordingly allowed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE29.01.2014Jiten (ANITA CHAUDHRY )JUDGE