Shri Kailash Chand Gupta v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kota

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.160/2016 Shri Kailash Chand Gupta vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota Date of Order:29[th] August, 2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Ms. Purvi Mathur, for the appellant-assessee. Office has pointed out that there is a delayof 6 days in filing present appeal for whichseparate application has been filed seekingcondonation of delay u/S. 5 of Limitation Act. After hearing counsel for appellant, we aresatisfied that the delay has been satisfactorilyexplained & deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, application seeking condonationof delay u/S 5 of Limitation Act stands allowedand the delay is accordingly condoned. Heard on merits. The appellant-assessee filed return of incomefor assessment year 2003-2004 on 20/11/2003. Anotice u/s 148 was issued on 24/3/2010 afterrecording reasons. In response to the notice, theassessee submitted his application to treat hisoriginal return as return filed u/s 148.Accordingly, the assessee requested reasons forinitiating proceedings u/s 148 was served to theassessee on 13/8/2010. After the notices u/s143(2) & 142(1) were served on assessee on13/8/2010. During the course of inquiry, it revealed thatassessee is in the list of beneficiaries, who hadreceived gift of 5.00 lacs in assessment year2003-04 from Shri Ramnik on 25/1/2003 andaccordingly, notice u/s 147/148 were issued to theassessee. In compliance thereof, he submitted hisobjection to the proceedings u/s 148 but itjustification was not found acceptable. Theobjections were dealt separately by the officevide letter dt. 19/11/2010. His defence was thathe received a gift of Rs.5.00 lacs which he hadreceived from the donor and amount was transferredfrom the bank account of the donor Shri Ramnik,which was deposited in his bank account on22/1/2003. It was not found genuine for the reason thatthe assessee has no relationship with the donorRamnik and accordingly, there was no reason forgiving gift for natural love and affection andfurther, there was no past savings reflected inthe bank account of the donor Shri Ramnik Agarwaland sum of Rs. 5.00 lac was immediately depositedin the account before it is given to the assessee.The revenue considered the return filed by RamnikAgarwal, which shows that the above person was nothaving capacity to give above gift as the totalincome of the donor for assessment year 2002-03was only Rs. 1.13 lacs while he has claimed tohave given the gift of Rs.5.00 lacs. Accordingly, upon final hearing by theAssessing Officer the gift was taken by the assessee from Shri Ramnik could not be held to begenuine. The order of the Assessing Officer dt.30/11/2010 was subject matter of challenge at theinstance of the assessee before the Commissionerof Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer. While acceptingthe reasoning given by the Assessing Officer byits order impugned, since no further evidence wasfiled by the assessee in counter, the appeal wasfinal dismissed upholding the view expressed bythe Assessing Officer in the order impugned. Accordingly, upon final hearing by theAssessing Officer the gift was taken by the assessee from Shri Ramnik could not be held to begenuine. The order of the Assessing Officer dt.30/11/2010 was subject matter of challenge at theinstance of the assessee before the Commissionerof Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer. While acceptingthe reasoning given by the Assessing Officer byits order impugned, since no further evidence wasfiled by the assessee in counter, the appeal wasfinal dismissed upholding the view expressed bythe Assessing Officer in the order impugned. The order of the Commissioner was a subjectmatter of challenge before the ITAT and apart fromwhat is being observed by the CIT (Appeals) whilerejecting the explanation of the assessee whichhas been referred to in para 5 & 7 of the impugnedorder dt. 12/4/2016, the ITAT further observedthat despite ample opportunity being afforded andcalling upon the assessee as to whether there wasany occasion or celebration due to which the giftwas given to the assessee from the donor in thepast or in further the donor had given any suchgift to this assessee at the same time in theabsence of any blood relationship or even remoterelationship why the gift was at all made, nosatisfactory explanation came forward and relyingon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, thefinding of the fact of two authorities wasconfirmed by the ITAT under order impugned. After we have heard counsel for appellant atlength & gone through order of the ITAT dt.12/4/2016 what is being contended before us is review of the concurrent finding of fact based onthe material on record. We do not find anysubstantial question of law involved in thepresentappealwhichemergesforour consideration. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. (AJAY RASTOGI),J. (K.S.JHAVERI),J. A.Sharma/59