Mr. Ishu Vasudev Datwani v. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Xix

bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1225 OF 2011 Mr. Ishu Vasudev Datwani … Appellant v/s Commissioner of Income Tax-XIX … Respondent Mr.S.C. Tiwari with Ms.Natasha Mangat for the appellant.Mr.Suresh Kumar for the respondent. CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ. DATED : 19TH MARCH, 2014 P. C. : 1The appellant assessee has preferred this appeal being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 24[th] November, 2010. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal of the revenue and reversed the findings that of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was in favour of the present appellant. 2The argument before us is that, this appeal raises substantial questions of law in relation to non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, fairness and equity. It is submitted that the Tribunal relied upon the materials which were never put to the appellant assessee. The Tribunal, in relying on them and making out a new case, ought to have sought complete details and explanation from the appellant assesee, more so, when there are documents in possession of the asseessee. This contention is elaborated by pointing out that the Tribunal not only held against the assessee on the point of genuineness and authentication of the transactions and dealings styled as gift, but also probed and questioned the issue by raising doubt as to the love and affection towards the appellant asseessee. Doubting the genuineness of the transactions and equally the identity of the donor, his relationship with the assessee, the Tribunal has held against him by referring to several aspects which were not raised during the course of the proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Therefore this appeal deserves to be admitted, argues the learned counsel for the appellant. Tribunal has not travelled beyond any of the allegations or the case that the appellant assessee was required to meet. The appellant was required to explain as to how one Mr.Ashok Kumar Sajnani allegedly gifted Rs.20,00,000/- to the appellant asseessee during the subject assessment year. In seeking an explanation with regard to the identity of Mr.Sajnani, his relationship with the assessee and whether there are any documents executed between the parties, both the assessing officer and the Tribunal referred to the activities of Mr. Sajnani. Equally, they refer to the fact that the appellant had been receiving such amounts even in the preceding assessment year. The Tribunal in scrutinizing the transactions found that said Mr.Sajnani and equally the appellant has failed to point out the relationship and any other document or gift deed. It is in that context that the Tribunal held that there is no linkage between the so-called pay order from the bank account. Nothing in relation to the business of Give and Take Trading Enterprises has been proved. That may be a trading concern based in Dubai and stated to be one of Mr.Sajnani, however, that by itself does not mean that the assessee has discharged the burden. The doubt has been rightly raised and in the context of the response from the assessee himself. The letter dated 20[th] September, 2008 with all its contents has been referred to. We cannot, therefore, rely on the submission of the learned counsel that the assessee has been denied the opportunity to explain the deal in details. There is no prejudice demonstrated to us. The Tribunal has rightly held that copy of the passport and commercial license of Mr.Sajnani may be proving his identity, however that is not enough. In relation to the transaction, namely, the gift, something more was required to be brought on record. That has not been brought on record. Such is the factual conclusion rendered by the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal. Coupled with that the conduct of the assessee in receiving such monies in the earlier years and in the name of his minor children has also been referred to. Therefore, the conclusion that the burden on the assessee has not been discharged by him, cannot be said to be vitiated by a perversity or error of law apparent on the face of record. We do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (G.S. KULKARNI, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)