- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the assessee proposing the following substantial questions of law arising out of the Tribunal"), in Tax Appeal No. 503/Chd/2001, in respect of the asst. yr. 1997 -98 : "(A). Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the action of the authorities below by upholding the addition made on account of the impugned gift of Rs. 1 lakh ? (B) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings of the Tribunal are perverse and against the evidence 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 gift -
(2.) THE assessee had shown a foreign gift of Rs. 1 lakh from one Darshan Singh. The AO asked the assessee to explain the foreign gift and relationship with the donor. On being asked, the assessee stated that he was not aware about the business of the donor. The statement of the father of the donor, Shri Mukhtiar Singh was recorded and it was found that the gift was not genuine. On appeal, the CIT(A) reversed this view taken by the AO. On further appeal, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) relying upon the judgment of this Court in Lal Chand Kalra vs. CIT (1981) 22 CTR (P&H) 135 and the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Sajan Dass and Sons vs. CIT (2003) 181 CTR (Del) 581 : (2003) 264 ITR 435 (Del), holding that : "The mere identification of the donor and the receipt of gift amount through banking channel was not sufficient to prove the genuineness of the gift. Since the claim of the gift was made by the assessee, the onus lay on him not only to establish the identity of the person making the gift but also his capacity to make the gift and that it had only been received as gift from the donor."
(3.) REFERENCE was also made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Durga Prasad More 1973 CTR (SC) 500 : (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 125 CTR (SC) 124 : (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). The Tribunal concluded that the gift was not genuine. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the findings recorded by the Tribunal.;