THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A. No.694 of 2014
DATED:20.11.2014 Between:
The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Hyderabad.
And Kuldeep Singh Bagga, Hyderabad.
… Appellant ….Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A. No.694 of 2014
Judgment : (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is intended to be preferred and as such was called upon to be admitted by the Revenue against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 12.7.2013 on the following suggested questions of law in relation to the assessment year 1999-2000.
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is not perverse ?
2. Whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit in the form of gift under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act without appreciating that the genuineness of the gift transaction was not established by the assessee and in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (214 ITR 80) (SC) ?
We have heard Mr.J.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the revenue and have gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal.
As far as the first question is concerned, we are of the view that there is no element of perversity as the learned Tribunal has examined all books of accounts and other related documents and reached a finding.
The learned Tribunal in contrast with the finding of the lower authorities below examined the facts and found that the donor has evinced interest to donate the amount and the transaction took place through banking channels and the amount received has been paid through bank accounts and all details have been examined. In one word, “the genuineness” of this donation has been established. Therefore, each and every part has been discharged by the assessee. The learned Tribunal has noted that no material or evidence to dispel the same have been produced by the revenue. The revenue wants to rely on presumption and assumption of the Assessing Officer and we are of the view that the learned Tribunal has correctly held that presumption cannot take the place of evidence. Moreover, on identical issue in assessee’s own case in 2001-2002, the learned Tribunal found that the same donor was having creditworthiness. The decision has been rendered by the learned Tribunal on appreciation of facts, which does not appear to be absurd or devoid of any materials.
Hence, we do not find any element of law involved in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ 20th November, 2014 Pnb SANJAY KUMAR, J