The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. Shri A.k. Sachdeva

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.251 of 2009 (O&M)Date of decision: 06.11.2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs. Shri A.K. Sachdeva. -----Appellant -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:-Mr. Urvashi Dhugga, Standing Counselfor the revenue. ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred by revenue underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”)against the order dated 19.7.2007 of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘B’ in I.T.A. No.773/Chandi/2006 forthe assessment year 2003-04, proposing to raise followingsubstantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase the Hon’ble ITAT is justified in law in deleting theaddition of Rs.5,00,000/- made on account ofunexplained gift when the ingredients of making agenuine gift are not satisfied in the present case?” 2. The assessee claimed to have received a gift of Rs.5lac from his maternal uncle Ramesh Arora but the said amountwas added to his income by the Assessing Officer, asundisclosed income. On appeal, the CIT(A) accepted thegenuineness of the gift which has been affirmed by the Tribunal.The Tribunal observed:- “....This fact was not disputed that the maternal unclei.e. Shri Ramesh Arora is the proprietor of M/sRachna Exports and the cheque was issued by him.It is not a condition precedent that only thecheques/draft/ amount issued from personal bankaccount is only allowable for making any gift. Theingredients of making gift are duly satisfied in thepresent appeal. Even the revenue has not doubtedthe identity and capacity of the donor. The decisionfrom the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CITvs. R.R.S. Sibal (269 ITR 429) and CIT vs. Smt.Sunita Vachani (184 ITR 121) clearly supports thecase of the assessee wherein affidavits of the donorswere furnished. It was held that Tribunal is justified inholding that these were gifts and not income of theassessee. We have not found any evidence nor thedepartment has adduced any evidence that theimpugned amount belongs to the assessee in anymanner. The donor is the maternal uncle of theassessee and is also in a position to make a gift,therefore, from any angle the gift cannot besuspected. The decision of the Chandigarh Bench ofthe Tribunal in ITA No.676/Chandi/2002 dated20.9.2005, and ITA No.654/Chandi/2001 dt.23.6.06also supports the case of the assessee. We have also perused the accounts of M/s Rachna Exportsmaintained at Syndicate Bank, Account No.6022wherein vide entry dated 8.6.2002 the amount ofRs.5,01,000/- has been debited for making the gift DDNo.250001.” 4. In view of concurrent finding of fact recorded by theCIT(A) and the Tribunal that the gift was genuine, no substantialquestion of law arises. 5. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 06, 2009ashwani ( GURDEV SINGH ) JUDGE