- (1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the assessee raising following substantial questions of law, arising out of order passed by the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (SMC) (for short 'the Tribunal') in ITA No. 448/Asr/2000, dt. "(a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the action of authorities below by upholding the addition made on account of impugned gifts of Rs. 47,752 and Rs. 35,752 (being enhancement of income) ? (b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings of Tribunal are perverse and against the evidences on record thus unsustainable in law ? (c) Whether the Tribunal has misdirected itself in being influenced by irrelevant factors and applying erroneous criteria while deciding the issue of genuineness of the impugned gifts - , income at Rs. 2,33,110. Search and seizure operation was conducted in M/s Subash Chander & Brothers group of cases.
(2.)
(3.) THE assessee is connected with the group. During the examination of the cases, it was found that the assessee was having a joint account along with Smt. Raman Rani in which following credit entries were found : "3.4.1992 44,752.00 20.4.1992 6,000.00 27.4.1992 10,000.00 5.5.1992 12,000.00 11.6.1992 2,828.00 26.6.1992 4,154.00 14.8.1992 5,527.00 21.12.1992 4,652.00 16.01.1993 12,430.00" Vide a questionnaire sent to the assessee, he was required to explain the source of the credit entries. During the course of assessment, in spite of a number of opportunities given to the assessee, the assessee failed to discharge the onus laid on him to prima facie prove (i) identity of his creditor, (ii) capacity of such creditor, and (iii) genuineness of transaction. Accordingly, the cash credits found in the saving bank account were treated as unexplained income of the assessee as per s. 68 of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') and the peak amount of Rs. 47,752 was credited to the income of the assessee. 3. Against the impugned addition, the assessee went in appeal before the Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals) [for Rs. 47,752 found credited in the saving bank account of the assessee was received by a gift from one Smt. Gurdev Kaur, a close family relative/friend. It was submitted that Smt. Gurdev Kaur was produced in person before the AO, who after making certain verbal inquiries, asked her to leave. Accordingly, the assessee was under the impression that the necessary explanation has been furnished to the satisfaction of the AO. It was further submitted by the assessee that the amount was received by him on the occasion of marriage of his daughter and during that period even Remittance in Foreign Exchange (Immunities) Scheme, 1991 (for short 'Scheme, 1991') was in force. It was further pleaded that the assessee had received certain other gifts from some persons during the subsequent year, the additions made on that account were (sic be) deleted by the CIT(A). On inquiry from the then AO, it was found that the plea of the assessee that Smt. Gurdev Kaur was produced before the AO at the relevant time was found to be incorrect. While considering the plea of the assessee, it was found by the CIT(A) that the plea of Smt. Gurdev Kaur having been produced before the AO was patently falsified from the fact that assessee was that the details of foreign remittance as per the bank account will be furnished. Thereafter, there is nothing on record about any further information having been submitted by the assessee. There is not even a mention in the assessment record or even in the statement of facts in the memo of appeal to show that Smt. Gurdev Kaur was ever fact filed in original in the course of appellate proceedings. The same is the position with regard to certificate dt. 18th immunities in terms of Scheme, 1991 was also found to be without merit, for the reason that the procedure laid down therein for claiming immunity was not followed. As the assessee failed to discharge the burden, the additions made by the AO were upheld in appeal.;