Case Law Details
Brief of the Case
Punjab & Haryana High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Shri Jawahar Lal Oswal & others that suspicion and doubt may be the starting point of an investigation but cannot, at the final stage of assessment, take the place of relevant facts, particularly where a deeming provision is sought to be invoked. The principle that governs a deeming provision is that the initial onus lies upon the revenue to raise a prima facie doubt on the basis of credible material. The onus, thereafter, shifts to the assessee to prove that the gift is genuine and if the assessee is unable to proffer a credible explanation, the Assessing Officer may legitimately raise an inference against the assessee. If, however, the assessee furnishes all relevant facts within his knowledge and offers a credible explanation, the onus reverts to the revenue to prove that these facts are not correct. The revenue cannot draw an inference based upon suspicion or doubt or perceptions of culpability or on the quantum of the amount, involved particularly when the question is one of taxation, under a deeming provision. Thus, neither suspicion/doubt, nor the quantum shall determine the exercise of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer.
Facts of the Case
The dispute in hand, briefly put, relates to the genuineness of two monetary gifts received by the assessee for and on behalf of his daughters on the occasion of their marriage. The gifts, as admitted, were received from Dr. O.S.Gill and Shri B.P.Bhardwaj, by demand drafts, while the assessee was in London. The Assessing Officer, served a notice under Section 143, addressed queries to the assessee, obtained information through the Central Board of Direct Taxes, from the Inland Revenue, Great Britain, examined Dr. O.S.Gill but as he was not satisfied with the explanation proffered by the assessee, on the basis of material on record, held that the assessee has not been able to prove the genuineness of the gifts. The Assessing Officer, therefore, raised an inference, under Section 69 and held that the gifts represent the income of the assessee and added these amounts to the income of the assessee. A protective assessment was made in the hands of Ms Monica and Ruchica Oswal.
Contention of the Assessee
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
