Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. In reply, assessee stated that no attempt has been made to verify whether any recipient has either accepted or acknowledged the gift. Assessee staled that reliance has been placed only on some alleged statements made before the CBI, but the CBI itself failed to establish any case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. To buttress the argument, the assessee made reference to CA No. 247 to ?5Q of 1997 in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the entries in the seized documents are to be proved and that they may be used as corroborative evidence and not evidence itself against the accused. It was further stated that persons like Shri L K Advani, Shri P Shiv Shankar, Shri N D Tiwari, Shri Madhav Rao Scindia etc., against whom proceedings were initiated on the basis of seized material, have all denied to have received any money from the assessee. In the case of Shri Buta Singh, the amount said to have been disbursed to him, has been treated as income by the Department in his hands. Assessee stated, there cannot be any gift and at the same time that cannot be treated as income in the hands of recipients. Assessee also referred to similar proceedings initiated in the case of assessee's brothers, Shri B R Jain and Shri N K Jain and stated that if the donors are not properly identified, then no proceeding could survive.

I have already slated that I had no financial dealings with Shri S K Jain. Therefore, I am in no position to comment on the contents of the above mentioned diary or what is meant by the abbreviation AM or the figures mentioned therein.

So also Shri Balram Jhakar denied any receipts or any financial dealing with the assessee. In the case of another alleged recipient, Shri L K Advani, the High Court absolved the recipient, holding that there was no evidence against the person concerned, except the diary, note books, loose sheets, which cannot be used against the accused unless there are corroborative evidences. It was further submitted that in this case the Hon'ble High Court categorically held that there was no evidence to the effect of receipts from Jains and there was no acceptance by the alleged persons. It was further submitted, there is a fundamental infirmity and fallacy in the stand of the revenue. The infirmity is that nowhere it is mentioned that the donees have accepted the gifts. If the donees have not accepted the gifts, the gift is incomplete and Gift Tax cannot be levied. It was further submitted, therefore, the assessment made by the AD under Section 15(3) /16 deserves to be quashed.

15. Vide Para 15 of his order, the CGT(A) records that wherein some of the persons, who claimed to have received gift from the assessee, deposed before the CBI. Shri P Shiv Shankar has categorically stated that he had no dealing with any of the Jains of whatsoever nature and he never received any money. He further states that neither he nor his wife and children have gone abroad and there was no need of receiving any money at all. The entries, he stated, are cooked up and false. Shri Arif Mohd. Khan stated, he had no financial dealings with Shri S K Jain and therefore not in a position to comment on the contents of the diary and the figures mentioned therein. Shri Balram Jhakar stated, he never received any money nor had any financial dealings with Jain brothers; and mere using the code 'JKH' if extended stands for 'Balram Jhakar' is a fallacy. So also in the criminal revision petition filed by Shri L K Advani against the judgment of Special Judge, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has quashed the proceedings against him and held that there was no evidence against the petitioner (L K Advani) except the diaries, note books and loose sheets, which cannot be used against him unless there are some corroborative evidences.