2010 (6) TMI 497 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of income Gift genuine / non-genuine - Condonation of delay - The AO was not satisfied about the identity of the donor or their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the gifts as no evidence was furnished before him - Once onus is not discharged the addition has to be made under section 68 As a result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
- Confirmation of gifts as non-genuine by CIT (A)
- Addition of specific amounts to the income of the assessees
- Failure to provide evidence of creditworthiness and relationship with donors
- Dismissal of appeals due to lack of evidence and failure to establish genuineness of gifts

ITA No.1393/Ahd/2008 - Asst. Year 2000-01:
The appeal involved the confirmation of additions for gifts received by the assessee from two donors, Smt. Sushilaben and Smt. Manjulaben. The AO required evidence of creditworthiness and natural love of affections for the gifts, which the assessee failed to provide. The CIT (A) confirmed the additions as the relationship with the donors was not established from Income-tax records. The Tribunal upheld the decision, emphasizing the onus on the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of gifts, highlighting the importance of human probability in establishing the authenticity of gifts.

ITA No.1391/Ahd/2008 - Asst. Year 1999-00:
This appeal concerned gifts received by the assessee from two individuals. While one gift was accepted based on evidence provided, the other gift was confirmed as non-genuine due to lack of supporting documentation. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the failure to establish the genuineness of the gifts and the lack of evidence presented before the AO.

ITA No.1392/Ahd/2008 - Asst. Year 2005-06:
In this case, the assessee claimed to have received a substantial gift from Smt. Jashwantidevi. Despite providing some documentation, the genuineness of the gift was not established, leading to the confirmation of the addition by the CIT (A). The Tribunal upheld the decision, highlighting the failure to discharge the onus of proving the authenticity of the gifts and the lack of sufficient evidence presented.

Overall, the appeals were dismissed in all three cases due to the failure of the assessees to provide concrete evidence of the creditworthiness of donors, the nature of relationships, and the authenticity of the gifts received. The Tribunal stressed the importance of meeting the burden of proof in establishing the legitimacy of gifts in such cases.