M.M Kumar, J.:— This order shall dispose of I.T.A Nos. 571 and 574 of
2. The facts are being referred from I.T.A No. 571 of 2006. The assessee-appellant has approached this court by filing the aforementioned appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, claiming that the following substantial questions of law would emerge out of the order dated April 19, 2006, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (S.M.C), Chandigarh, in I.T.A No. 569.Chandi/2005, in respect of the assessment year 1995-96:
“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 reopening of the assessment under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as valid which finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is bad in law as there was no assessment completed in respect of the original return filed with the Department nor was there any record or application of mind by the Assessing Officer?
B. 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 action of the Assessing Officer in specific wherein the Assessing Officer has clearly defied the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO, [2003] 259 ITR 19 wherein it has been clearly held that the Assessing Officer cannot proceed with the assessment proceeding without first disposing of the objections raised by the assessee against the reasons recorded under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?
C. 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 reopening on the basis of the rea sons recorded under section 148 which reasons being illegal and so the proceeding also being illegal and thus needs to be quashed?
D. 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 reopening of the assess ment under section 148 as valid on the basis of the proceeding in the subsequent assessment year, i.e, the assessment year 1996-97, which action of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is bad in law?
E. 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 gift of Rs. 1 lakh?
F. 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 allowing only partial relief out of the opening balance being brought forward from earlier year which action of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse?
G. 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?
H. 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 and that of the opening balance ?”
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length and find that none of the aforementioned questions of law would arise for our determination because, firstly, it is found from a perusal of the orders on record that the reasons were recorded by the competent authority for initiation of proceedings under section 148 of the Act. The sufficiency thereof cannot be gone into by this court. It could not be successfully argued that the reasons did not have any nexus with the material available with the Assessing Officer.
4. The authorities below have disbelieved receipt of gifts claimed by the assessee-appellant from Jaswinder Singh, Bharpur Singh, Major Singh, Maghar Singh and Manjit Singh. There is nothing on record to show the relationship between the donor, and the donee, capacity of the donor to make gifts and the occasion therefor. The assessee had failed to discharge the heavy onus. The Tribunal has opined that it is against the human probability that a stranger is claimed to have made gifts when admittedly most of the close relatives do not make any such huge gifts even if they are well off.
5. In view of the above, we do not find that any question much less a substantial question of law arises for our determination.
6. Dismissed.