9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the gifts received by the assessee and his minor sons were genuine. 2. Whether the assessee knew the family background and residential address of the donors. 3. Whether the assessee knew the business activities and correct names of the donors. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Genuineness of Gifts The core issue was whether the gifts amounting to Rs. 46,87,378 received by the assessee and his minor sons were genuine. The Assessing Officer (AO) scrutinized the gifts under section 143(3) and determined the total income at Rs. 75,38,201, adding the gifts as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income-tax Act. The AO found that the gifts were received in the form of SBI Resurgent India Bonds (RIBs) from non-resident donors, V.K.S. Panicker and Jaspal Singh Oberoi. The AO questioned the creditworthiness and genuineness of the gifts, noting that the gifts were not received on any eventful occasions and that the assessee did not know the donors personally. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who accepted the identity and creditworthiness of the donors based on the ownership of the RIBs and other bank documents. The CIT(A) also relied on the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Mrs. Sunita Vachani, which stated that gifts can be received from foreigners and strangers and that gifts originating from foreign countries through banking channels cannot be doubted. Consequently, the CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO. However, the Tribunal, upon appeal by the revenue, found that the assessee failed to establish the creditworthiness and genuineness of the gifts. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence of the donors' financial capabilities or their relationship with the assessee. Additionally, the Tribunal emphasized that the banking transactions alone do not establish the genuineness of the gifts, citing the Supreme Court judgment in the case of P. Mohanakala. Issue 2: Knowledge of Donors' Family Background and Residential Address The AO observed that the assessee did not know the family background or residential address of the donors. The assessee provided Xerox copies of the donors' passports and detailed addresses, but the AO found this insufficient to establish a genuine connection between the assessee and the donors. The Tribunal agreed with the AO, noting the lack of any personal relationship or interaction between the assessee and the donors. Issue 3: Knowledge of Donors' Business Activities and Correct Names The AO also noted that the assessee did not know the business activities of the donors and even referred to one of the donors by an incorrect name. The Tribunal found this to be a significant factor in questioning the genuineness of the gifts. The Tribunal emphasized that the lack of knowledge about the donors' financial status and business activities further weakened the assessee's claim of genuine gifts. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the creditworthiness and genuineness of the gifts. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order and restored the AO's addition of Rs. 46,87,378 as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income-tax Act. The appeal of the revenue was allowed, and the gifts were deemed to be the assessee's own unaccounted money ploughed back in the form of gifts.
|
