Sh. Bhupinder Singh Gill v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.364 of 2008Date of decision: 20.10.2008 Sh. Bhupinder Singh Gill. -----Appellant. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh and another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present:-Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocatefor the appellant. ----- ORDER: The assessee has preferred this appeal under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 28.9.2007(Annexure A-3) passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Chandigarh Bench ‘A’ in I.T.A. No.123/Chd/2007 for the assessmentyear 2000-01, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:-i) Whether the impugned orders Annexure A-1 and A-3are legally sustainable in the eyes of law as regard todeclaring the gifts as not genuine when the assesseehas received the gift through the proper bankingchannel? ii) Whether the impugned orders Annexure A-1 and A-3are legally sustainable in the eyes of law as regard toare legally sustainable in the eyes of law as regard to the declaring the gifts as not genuine when theassessee has given sufficient explanation with regardto the same and an affidavit was also filed confirmingthat the gift was furnished by the donor?” The assessee claimed to have received a gift from hiscousin in Canada through banking channel, genuineness of which wasdoubted by the Assessing Officer. The assessee produced confirmationby e-mail and unattested affidavit of the donor. The Assessing Officerheld that the transaction was not genuine, inter-alia, on the ground thatequal amount was deposited simultaneously in the account of thedonor. The donor was a housewife. The donor was not producedinspite of opportunities. On appeal, the CIT (Appeal) reversed the saidfinding, inter-alia, on the ground that husband of the donor had thesources of income and inference drawn by the Assessing Officer forholding the gift not to be genuine was not called for. The Tribunal, on appeal of the revenue, restored the orderof the Assessing Officer, noticing the following:- “i) That the donor is a housewife having no independentsource of income.source of income. ii) That the donor was never produced before theassessing officer inspite of repeated asking by him.assessing officer inspite of repeated asking by him. iii)That the affidavit filed by the assessee is a selfserving document.serving document. iv)That the affidavit claimed to be sent by the donor isnot attested one.not attested one. v)That the assessee has not explained satisfactorily thedeposit of identical amount deposited in the accountof the donor immediately before the issuance ofalleged gift.deposit of identical amount deposited in the accountof the donor immediately before the issuance ofalleged gift. vi)That he never produced the copy of passportevidencing the departure of the donor from Indiashowing his inability to produce her before theassessing officer.”evidencing the departure of the donor from Indiashowing his inability to produce her before theassessing officer.” We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length. Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the findingof the Tribunal was perverse as no adverse inference could be drawnagainst the assessee for not producing the donor; no adverse inferencecould be drawn from the fact that identical amount was deposited in theaccount of the donor simultaneously. We do not find merit in the contention raised. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is pure finding of factby appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. Reasons forthe finding cannot be held to be irrelevant or non-existent. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )JUDGE October 20, 2008ashwani ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE