Allowing the appeal of the assesee the Court held that ; there was no dispute about identity of donors and genuineness of transaction. Even Assessing Officer had questioned donors as to source of money from which gifts had been made to assessee and donors on their part explained that money had come to them upon sale of certain properties. On facts, conclusion drawn by Assessing Officer was consistent with information provided by donors, therefore revision was held to be not valid . (AY. 2001-02)
Sunil Kumar Rastogi v. CIT (2018) 406 ITR 306/252 Taxman 293 (All)(HC)
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –Gift- Conclusion drawn by Assessing Officer was consistent with information provided by donors therefore revision was held to be not valid .[ S. 68 ]