SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

The Dy.Commissioner Of Income … vs Shri Arvind N. Nopany,, Baroda on 24 January, 2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT
Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Income Tax (Search Seizer) Appeal Nos.128 129/Ahd/2016
(Assessment Years : 2008-09 2009-10)

DCIT, Vs. Shri Arvind N. Nopany,
Central Circle -2, 11-A, Nilamber -1,
Baroda. Saiyed Vasna Road,
Baroda.
[PAN No. AAAPN 8927 F]

(Appellants) .. (Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri R. C. Danday, CIT-D.R.
Respondent by : Shri M. K. Patel, A.R.

Date of Hearing : 02/01/2019
Date of P ronouncement : 24/01/2019

ORDER

PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY – JM:

These two instant appeals filed by the revenue are against the order dated
28.01.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 12, Ahmedabad
[Ld.CIT(A) in short] for Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09 2009-10 arising out of the
order u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the
Act”) dated 27.02.2015 passed by the DCIT Central Circle -2, Baroda with the following
grounds in IT(SS)A No.128/Ahd/2016:

[1] “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has
erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of gift of
Rs.5,00,00,000/-, by ignoring the facts that relation of donor (sister’s
husband) with the assessee is not falling u/s 56(ii) and (vii) of the Act and
gift was given without any reason and occasion.

[2] On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has
erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of gift of
-2-
IT(SS)A Nos.128 129/Ahd/2016
Asst.Year – 2008-09 2009-2010

Rs.5,00,00,000/- , by ignoring the facts that in spite of ample opportunity
the assessee has never produced donor before AO for further verification.
[3] On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to
have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer.

[4] It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the CIT (A) may be set aside and
that of Assessing Officer may be restored to the above extent.”

The issues involved in these cases are identical and thus the same are heard
analogously and are being disposed of by a common order. ITA No.128/Ahd/2016 is taken
as the lead case.

2. A search was conducted u/s 132 of the Act on 29.09.2011 in the Nopany Group
cases at Baroda including the case of the assessee. Accordingly, u/s 153A(a) of the Act a
notice was issued to the assessee on 07.02.2012 directing him to furnish the return of
income within 45 days thereof. In compliance to the same, the assessee filed his return of
income on 27.07.2012 declaring total income at Rs.10,22,830/- same as declared in the
original return of income filed u/s 139(1) of the Act on 19.06.2008. A notice u/s 143(2) of
the Act was issued on 30.07.2012 followed by a further notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along
with a detailed questionnaire on 14.01.2013. It is relevant to mention that the assessee
during the year under consideration shown income from companies in which he was
director, house property, business or profession, capital gain and income from other
sources. The documents which were received from the residents as well as the factory
premises of companies in which assessee was a director during search proceeding revealed
following amounts were received by the assessee as gift:

Sr. No. Dated Amount Cheque No.
1. 23.11.2006 6,00,00,000 848692
2. 16.10.2007 5,00,00,000 973868
3. 06.05.2008 5,00,00,000 107949

The said gift amounts were received from one Shri Narotam Sekhsariya. A show-cause
was issued directing the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of
the above transaction mentioned as gift. In reply, the assessee categorically mentioned that
-3-
IT(SS)A Nos.128 129/Ahd/2016
Asst.Year – 2008-09 2009-2010

the said Shri Narotam Sekhsariya was the brother-in-law of the assessee being the founder
of Ambuja Cements Ltd. and remained its Managing Director till recently. Shri Narotam
Sekhsariya was the 40th richest Indian according to Forbes.com. Details of his net worth
and the credential were also mentioned in the said reply dated 23.01.2015 as filed before
the Assessing Officer. However, the assessee was further directed by the Learned AO to
produce the donor before him to prove the genuineness of the transaction of 16 crores
along with evidence of his identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction. The
assessee thereafter produce the following documents of the said Shri Narotam Sekhsariya
to prove his identity and creditworthiness:

1) Copy of his PAN card (Annexure B)
2) Capital account statements for the assessment year 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-

10 (on a perusal of these statements, your goodself will observe that the Donor
had large capital base and have duly reflected these gifts given to me) –
(Annexure -C)

3) Copy of his Bank Statements reflecting the gifts (Annexure – B)

4) Assessment orders for the Assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10
(Annexure – E)

It was the case of the assessee that out of his natural love and affection the donor
has gifted amount to the assessee from his income/capital. The donor is a high net worth
individual. According to the assessee, the gifts were not liable to income tax in his hands
under Income Tax Act as they were ‘capital receipts’. Section 56(2)(vi) also exclude gifts
from individuals from certain specified relatives including ‘brother-in-law’ from the
purview of taxation. Further that, since the donor resides in Mumbai, it was not possible
for him to come down to Baroda before the Assessing Officer within such short notice. It
was categorically mentioned in the said reply that the donor was a regular tax payer and is
regularly assessed to tax for these years. The copies of his assessment order were also
attached along with the said reply before the Learned AO. It is relevant to mention that
such document has also before the first appellate authority and before us as well being part
of record annexed in the Paper Book.

-4-

IT(SS)A Nos.128 129/Ahd/2016
Asst.Year – 2008-09 2009-2010

However, such plea of the assessee was not found acceptable by the Learned
Assessing officer. Upon perusal of the evidence so placed before him by the assessee so as
to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the donor he then added Rs.5,00,00,000/- in
the hands of the assessee which was deleted by the Learned CIT(A). Hence, the instant
appeal.

3. At the time of the hearing of the instant appeal, the Learned DR question the
veracity of the order impugned passed by the Learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition
made by the Learned AO on this particular premise that the amount in question was
received by the assessee from the husband of his sister who is not a blood relative and thus
not saved by proviso of Section 56 of the Act, neither exempted from tax. The genuineness
of the gift has also been doubted by him since the assessee was adopted son of Shri
Narayan Prasad Nopani and Chandradevi Nopani. He thus relied upon the order passed by
the Learned AO.

4. The Learned Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that though the
assessee is an adopted child under the Hindu Law, mainly Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act, 1956 the assessee is having same status as of the own child of a spouse
in this case, Mr. and Mrs. Nopani. Apart from that, the genuineness and creditworthiness
of the donor since categorically explained by the assessee before the authorities below so
as to prove the genuineness of the transaction, the question of making addition does arise.
He, therefore, rely upon the order passed by the Learned CIT(A).

5. We have heard the respective parties, perused the relevant materials available on
record. We find that the Learned AO came to a finding that there was no specific reason to
give the said amount of Rs.16 crores in total to the assessee by the said Shri Narotam
Sekhsariya. While making an addition to the tune of Rs.5,00,00,000/- for the year under
consideration the Learned AO inter alia observed as follows:

-5-

IT(SS)A Nos.128 129/Ahd/2016
Asst.Year – 2008-09 2009-2010

“….d. The capital account of Mr Narottam Sekhsariya is verified. As per the
submission made by assessee, Mr Narotam Sekhsariya has donated to
various individuals and so gift given to assessee is just one of them. As per
the capital account of Mr Sekhsariya, it is seen that most of the donations
given by him are to various trusts and thus he must be getting benefit u/s VI
A deductions. Other than assessee, the highest recipient of donations from
Mr Sekhsariya is Pulkit Sekhsariya who is son of Mr Sekhsariya as
submitted during hearing, and Vaidehi Trust which is the trust established
in the name of the daughter of Mr Narotam Sekhsariya (Rs 5 crore in
F.Y.2007-08) .As can be seen* ,other than trusts and his son, no other
relative of Mr Sekhsariya has received a gift of substantial amount such as
Mr Arvind Nopany during the years under consideration. So the question
comes why only Mr Arvind Nopany has received such substantial amount of
gift of Rs 16 crore from Mr Narotam Sekhsariya when there was no specific
reason to give the gift. This factor questions the genuineness of the
transaction termed as gift

e. It is important to highlight inconsistency of this transaction that the money as
discussed herein above has been paid by Shri Sekhsariya who is husband of
Smt Nalini who is allegedly sister of assessee. It is unheard of in this part of
country that a brother who is financially very well shall accept a gift from his
sister although converse of same is very common. Thus genuineness of this
transaction as gift is not proved beyond doubt and lot remains to be proved,
which assessee has preferred not to substantiate.”

…………

The above affidavit is assessee’s own assertion that his father Lt. Shri
Narayan Prasad Nopany was not having any legal heir other than the
assessee and Smt. Chandadevi Nopany. However, it is common knowledge
that as per Hindu Succession Act if at all there was a daughter of Lt. Shri
Narayan Prasad Nopany, she should have been legal heir. This is evidence
that the claim of assessee that Smt Nalini Sheksariya is his sister does not
appear true and full of suspicion. In such a scenario only Shri Narotam
Sheksariya or Smt Nalini Sheksariya could have proved it that they are
related to assessee at all. But even after giving two opportunities, Shri
Sekhsariya has not presented himself before this office which raises more
doubts regarding genuineness of this transaction.

i. Fact narrated in the para g above has also been supported by the page no.

17, 18, 20 of Annexure BI-1 of seized documents. In this document exactly
same has been submitted by the assessee in the office of Tehsildar,
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

-6-

IT(SS)A Nos.128 129/Ahd/2016
Asst.Year – 2008-09 2009-2010

5.6 From all the above proceedings, discussion, facts and circumstances there
are compelling reasons for not considering the alleged gift transaction as a
genuine transaction between relatives as prescribed in section 56 of Income
Tax Act, 1961. As the exemption from considering the transaction as non-
taxable is not proved the whole of the amount of Rs.5,00,00,000/- is taxable
income of assessee as Income From Other Sources. Accordingly, addition of
Rs.5,00,00,000/- is made under the head Income From Other Sources u/s 56
of the Act and added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty
proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act are being initiated separately for
concealment of income.”

6. In appeal, the Learned CIT(A) deleted such addition made by the Learned AO with
the following observation:

“12. In view of the above, I further recognize the fact that Nalini and appellant
both being the children of Narayan Prasad Nopany from 7/3/78, they are siblings
in law and are therefore brother and sister, simplicitor and without any
conditionally, qualification or reservation in this behalf from 7/3/78, The seized
affidavit, the pivot of AO’s adverse conclusion, in my considered opinion, is only a
good starting point of enquiry by the AO, but certainly not conclusive evidence of
the fact that Nalini and appellant are not brother-sister. The AO, as rightly
submitted by the AR, only conveniently read the affidavit and jumped 😮 the
conclusion, completely overlooking the context of the averment made therein, It
has been satisfactorily explained by the appellant, and confirmed by his ‘sister’
Nalini and Mother Chandadevi, that why a factually wrong averment, though in
good faith, was made in affidavit filed before Tehsildar by the appellant. The
appellant also submitted the copy of land-mutation entry in consequence of the
‘wrong affidavit’ to highlight that even the authority before whom the affidavit was
fileds has not considered the contents of the same sacrosanct. The mutation
ultimately happened in three names: Chandradevi Nopany, Arvind Nopany and
Nalini Sekhsaria. As per the AR, this also would additionally and strongly imply
the factual by the Tehsildar that Naloi, being a daughter and heir to Narayan
Prasad Nopany. is rightfully entitled to share in the land. Thus, the (wrong)
averment in affidavit has not persuaded even the Tehsildar to conclude that Nalini
is not daughter of Narayan Prasad Nopany or sister of the appellant. Therefore, 1
agree with the appellant that the averment of the appellant in the seized affidavit
has been successfully repelled and explained by the appellant. Since the status of
spouses een Nalini and Narottam Sekhsaria is not doubted or questioned by the
AO, it needs, as a fact, to be recognized that the donor Shri Narottam Sekhsaria
is the brother-in-law of the appellant.

-7-

IT(SS)A Nos.128 129/Ahd/2016
Asst.Year – 2008-09 2009-2010

13. The AO has doubted the genuineness of the gift. In my considered opinion,
the appellant has established the genuineness of the gifts not once but twice:
during original assessment u/s 143(3) for AX 08-09 and again during the
proceedings u/s 153A. The evidences available in the paper-book and listed by the
appellant and extracted by me in para 5 above including copies of assessment
orders, bank accounts, capital accounts and confirmation of the donor establish
doubtlessly and satisfactorily the identity and capacity of the donor and the
genuineness of the transaction. The appellant clearly and fully discharged the
onus. Though thereafter the AO asks the appellant to produce the donor, the
appellant only ensures attendance by donor’s AR with further confirmation,
assessment orders and bank-statement of the donor. The AO has thereafter not
made any enquiry nor brought any adverse material on record and not provided
any further opportunity to explain any further aspect to the appellant, and still
holds against the appellant without discharging her onus and also without
clarifying how submission of the appellant is not acceptable. Moreover, vide
appellant’s submissions reproduced in para 7 above, each objection of the AO in
the assessment order and further in remand report including the absence of gift
deed has been satisfactorily met by the appellant. The observations of the AO
about what gifts the donor has generally made or what happens in normal Hindu
family etc are wholly irrelevant to decide the issue. Similarly, the observation of
trie AO with regard to “complex financial transactions” in donor’s bank account is
equally out of place and irrelevant in appellant’s case. It is thus clear that the
appellant successfully discharged the onus, and the AO had no authority, without
shifting the burden back to the appellant by gathering cogent and credible
evidences casting serious doubts on the veracity of evidences already filed by the
appellant, to ask the appellant to further produce oral evidence of the donor, and
still thereafter, however, the appellant did comply substantially and meaningfully.
Thus, there is no ground for holding the gifts non-genuine. Thus and therefore it
is further held that the amounts of Rs. 5 crore each received by the appellant
from Shri Narottam Sekhsaria represent the explained and genuine gifts for
respective years.

14. The last issue to be decided is whether Narottam Sekhsaria would qualify
as “relative” within the meaning of s. 56(2)(vi) proviso clause a so as to make gift
from him to the appellant exempt. It would be necessary to have a look at the
provisions:

Income from other sources.

“56. (1) Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total
income under this Act shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head
“Income from other sources”, if it is not chargeable to income-tax under
any of the heads specified in section 14, items A to E.

-8-

IT(SS)A Nos.128 129/Ahd/2016
Asst.Year – 2008-09 2009-2010

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the
provisions of sub-section (I), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to
income-tax under the head “Income from other sources”, namely :–

(i). …………
[(v) where any sum of money exceeding fifty thousand rupees is

received without consideration by an individual or a Hindu
undivided family from any person on or after the 1st day of
April, 2006 23[but before the 1st day of October, 2009}, the
whole of such sum :

Provided that this clause shall not apply to any sum of
money received–

       (a)     from any relative; or
(b) ...........

Explanation.--For the purposes of this clause, "relative"
means-

       (i)     ...........
(ii) brother or sister of the individual;

(iii) brother or sister of the spouse of the individual;

...........

(vii) spouse of the person referred to in clauses (ii) to (vi);]"

The Ld. AR, after taking me through the provisions, submitted that the
brother-in-law would fall in the category of "relative" when explanation (ii)
and (viii) are read, as required, together, I have perused the provisions- I
firstly find, as submitted by the AR, that there is no mention of "blood
relative" in the whole section. Receipts exceeding Rs, 50,000/- without
consideration is taxable u/s 56 unless saved by proviso. Explanation
defines "relative", and as per clause (ii) read with clause (vii), the sister's
husband is also a relative. Thus, 1 am in absolute agreement with the Ld.
AR that the Ld. AO's attempt to some-how read "blood relative" in proviso,
when plainly and clearly only "relative" is mentioned and is defined in
proviso to s. 56, shows that the Ld, AO has misread the provisions and
applied the same unreasonably. 1 am satisfied, in view of my earlier finding
after quoting from Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, in para 12
above that the receipts from Shri Narottam ikhsaria are clearly covered by
clause (a) of proviso to s. 56(2) read with explanations (ii) and (vii). Thus,
it is held that the gifts of Rs. 5 crore in both the yeas received from
Narottam Sekhsaria, being from a "relative", i.e. brother-in-law of the
appellant, is not taxable u/s 56. The gifts having been fully established as
genuine and from explained sources, the receipts are also not taxable u/s
68, Thus the addition of Rs. 5 crore each made by the AO for both the
assessment years under appeal is not sustainable and therefore the same
-9-
IT(SS)A Nos.128 129/Ahd/2016
Asst.Year - 2008-09 2009-2010

is deleted. The appellant gets equivalent relief. The related grounds
succeed."

7. We find that the details of the donor starting from PAN number, capital gain
statement, bank statement and others is annexed to the paper book, which was duly placed
before the authorities below. It appears that when Shri Narottam Sekhkaria was not
brought to the Learned AO by the assessee no further enquiry was conducted by him, no
record against the assessee was also brought. Apart from that, the creditworthiness and/or
genuineness of the transaction though doubted by the Learned AO, the same has not been
proved by any cogent document in favour of the revenue. Further that we find that the
Learned AO acted beyond his jurisdiction by raising doubts regarding the relationship of
the assessee and the donor ignoring the statutory provision in this regard as already been
highlighted by the assessee before him in his written reply dated 04.02.2015. Without
rebutting the submission made by the assessee the order of addition was made by the
Learned AO. Further that, whether the gift so received by the assessee from his brother-in-
law is exempted from tax under section 56 of the Act has been considered on a wrong
notion. Instead of relative as provided by the statute "blood relative" has been considered
by the Learned AO and as a result whereof addition was made which is absolutely
erroneous as rightly pointed out by the Learned CIT(A) as it reflects from the order
impugned. Thus, in the absence of any infirmity in the order passed by the Learned CIT(A)
we decline to interfere with the same. Hence, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed.

8. In the result, both the revenue's appeals in IT(SS)A No.128 129/Ahd/2016 are
dismissed.

This Order pronounced in Open Court on                                         24/01/2019

Sd/- Sd/-
( PRAMOD KUMAR ) ( Ms. MADHUMITA ROY )
VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER

Ahmedabad; Dated 24/01/2019
- 10 -
IT(SS)A Nos.128 129/Ahd/2016
Asst.Year - 2008-09 2009-2010

Priti Yadav, Sr.PS
आदे श क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. यथ / The Respondent.
3. संबं धत आयकर आयु त / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आयु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad.
5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील!य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad

6. गाड' फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER,

स या पत त //True Copy//
उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar)
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad

1. Date of dictation 02/01/2019 (Dictation Pages : 7)

2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 07/01/2019

3. Other Member...

4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 21/01/2019

5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement...

6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S.......

7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk.....................

8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk..........................................

9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature
on the order..........................

10. Date of Despatch of the Order..................

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation