1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh dated October 7, 2005, for the assessment year 1998-99, proposing the following substantial questions of law:
“(a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the action of the authorities below by upholding the addition made on account of impugned gifts of Rs. 2 lakhs, 1.70 lakhs and 0.30 lakh?
(b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal are perverse and against the evidences on record thus unsustainable in law?
(c) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has misdirected itself in being influenced by irrelevant factors and applying erroneous criteria while deciding the issue of genuineness of the impugned gifts ?”
2. The facts noticed in the order of the Tribunal are that the assessee had constructed a house property. He had claimed to have received various gifts aggregating to Rs. 15,69,000 for the assessment years 1997-98 to 2001-02 from various non-residents. In the year under appeal, the assessee had claimed to have received a sum of Rs. 4,70,000 from non-residents and Rs. 1,20,000 from four persons at Rs. 30,000 each. The assessee was asked to establish the identity of the donors, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the gifts. In the case of Smt. Surinder Kaur, the assessee filed an affidavit along with a copy of the bank draft No. FRA 163292, dated December 10, 1997, of the State Bank of India, Frankfurt/main Germany branch. The Assessing Officer had recorded the statement of the assessee. Some of the relevant questions have been quoted by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order along with replies given by the assessee. On the basis of the statement of the assessee and the relevant evidence on record, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that even the identity of the donors was in doubt. The genuineness of the gifts was not established and that she was not related to the assessee and there was no occasion for making the gift. The reasons given by the Assessing Officers with regard to the gift made by Smt. Surinder Kaur are:
“The perusal of the above statement clearly establishes the following facts:
(A) The donor is not in any way related or closely connected to the assessee family. Apparently, she is a professional donor.
(B) Donor's family never received similar gifts from the assessee family on any occasion.
(C) The only intimacy with the assessee family was that she happened to be sister of the neighbour of the assessee living in 14, Bank Colony, Patiala, and the assessee was living in 13, Bank Colony, Patiala that too on rent otherwise the assessee even does not know the name of the husband of the donor or his address and telephone number, etc.
(D) The donor shifted to Germany 15-20 years back.
(E) The donor never made similar gifts to her real brothers living in 14, Bank Colony where she is stated to be the regular visitor. Her brothers have not even renovated their old house for the last 20-25 years. Had she been generous enough to donate to the assessee living next door to her brothers, she would have first preferred to help renovate the house of her brothers and would have helped her bro thers to expand their petty dairy business.
(F) The assessee's family has not much close relationship even with the brothers of the donor living next door.
(G) It is totally unbelievable that the donor will run from pillar to post to entire exclusion of the donee, to buy papers for affidavit, get the same typed and attested after making gift of such huge amount and then hand over demand drafts and affidavits personally at the shop of the assessee and it is also unbelievable that the donee did not know the advocate attesting the affidavit at Patiala. All this appears to be a concocted story.
(H) The perusal of a copy of the bank draft No. FRA 163292, dated. December 10, 1997, of the State Bank of India, Frankfurt/main Germany branch relevant that donor had given her name as Sukhwinder Kaur giving her account No. K-5405 and had signed as S. Kaur. However, the affidavit was filed in the name of Surinder Kaur Chawla and the signatures on Jaspal Singh, the assessee, stated that the actual name of the donor is Smt. Surinder Kaur. In view of these facts even the identity of the donor is not confirmed either from the name or from the signatures on affidavit and bank draft.
(I) In view of the above facts and genuineness of the gifts has not been conclusively proved that the amount was needed by the assessee for construction of a house and for this purpose he has manipulated the affairs in this fashion. Accordingly, the alleged receipt of gift from Smt. Surinder Kaur is not proved, as Smt. Surinder Kaur has no relationship or consideration to make such gifts nor there was any such occasion for making such gifts.”
3. For similar reasons, the gifts alleged to have been made by Sh. Jagdev Singh and Sh. D.S Chahal were not found to be genuine.
4. As regards the gift made by Berjinder Pal Singh, who was the nephew of the assessee, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer.
5. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are perverse and the gifts should have been held to be genuine.
6. Reliance has been placed on judgments of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi (Central-2) v. Mrs. Sunita Vachani., [1990] 184 ITR 121 and Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi…Petitioner v. R.S Sibal…, [2004] 269 ITR 429, wherein gifts from strangers were held to be valid.
7. We are unable to accept the submissions made.
8. It is well-settled that mere identification of donor and showing the movement of gift amount through banking channel is not enough to prove genuineness of the gift. The assessee was required to establish that the donor had the means and the gift was genuine, for natural love and affection. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of this court in Lall Chand Kalra v. CIT, [1981] 22 CTR 135, the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Sajan Dass and Sons v. CIT, [2003] 264 ITR 435, Cit v. Durga Prasad More, [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore., [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC).
9. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the assessee are distinguishable. In the said judgments, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the gifts were genuine which was held to be a pure finding of fact.
10. We have dealt with this aspect of the matter at length in our judgment dated July 31, 2006, in Subhash Chander Sekhri v. Deputy CIT, [2007] 290 ITR 300 (P & H) (I.T.A No. 265 of 2006). We are of the view that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the authorities that the gifts in question were not genuine, are pure findings of fact and no substantial question of law arises.
11. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.