9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (8) TMI 12 - HC - Income TaxGifts - Gift received through cheque in kind in form of Immovable assets - genuiness of gift - love and affection - cash credit - addition u/s 68 read with section 56(1) - Held that - There are pure findings of facts recorded by the two authorities below on the basis of evidence adduced which was sufficient to discharge the onus as well as burden caused upon her by proving the identity of donors, their credit worthiness as well as genuineness of the gifts. It has been established that the assets of Sh.Ashok Jain as on 31.03.2003 including movable/immovable assets were of Rs.1.25 crores, whereas the liability owned by Sh.Ashok Jain was only Rs.11.88 lacs less Rs.10.78 lacs. Keeping the assets owned by Sh.Ashok Jain we are of the considered view that he had the capacity to make gifts in question. All gifts are absolute and without any lien of anyone. There is no evidence on record to prove that the assessee has favoured the donor in any manner whatsoever by acquiring the gifts in question. The capacity of any person does not mean how much they earn monthly or annually, but the term capacity has vided term and that can be perceived by how wealthy he is. All the formalities, as per law are met by the assessee and donors as well. All the donors have admitted that they are great admirer of the assessee as she is working for the upliftment of poor people. - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved
1. Genuineness of gifts of immovable properties received by the assessee. 2. Genuineness of the cash gift received by the assessee. 3. Entitlement of the assessee to deduction under Section 16(1) of the Income Tax Act. 4. Legality of charging interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act. Analysis 1. Genuineness of Gifts of Immovable Properties The Assessing Officer (AO) questioned the genuineness of the gifts received by the assessee from Sh. Ashok Jain and Smt. Veena Jain. The AO noted that the donors had taken loans and sold jewelry to purchase the properties, which they later gifted. The AO doubted the creditworthiness of the donors and the genuineness of the gifts, concluding that the gifts were arranged and added the value of the properties to the assessee's income under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) disagreed with the AO, noting that the identity and creditworthiness of the donors were established through substantial documentary evidence, including gift deeds, bank accounts, IT returns, and sworn affidavits. The CIT(A) emphasized that the relationship or occasion for the gift is not as relevant as the genuineness of the transaction. The CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the AO. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, stating that the gifts were genuine and the identity and capacity of the donors were duly established. The ITAT referenced Sections 122 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, which outline the legal requirements for gifts of immovable property, and concluded that these requirements were satisfied. The ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal, confirming the CIT(A)'s order. 2. Genuineness of the Cash Gift The AO also questioned the genuineness of a cash gift of Rs. 2,00,000 received by the assessee from Sh. Pankaj Jain, alleging that it was an arranged gift and an accommodation entry. The AO added this amount to the assessee's income under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) found that the identity and creditworthiness of the donor were proved with documentary evidence. The CIT(A) noted that the gift was made through a proper bank cheque and that the AO's claim that the gift was made out of a loan from M/s Blue Bell Finance Company was incorrect. The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, stating that the gift was genuine and the identity and capacity of the donor were established. The ITAT noted that the transaction was carried out through an account payee cheque and reflected in the bank account of the assessee. The ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal, confirming the CIT(A)'s order. 3. Entitlement to Deduction under Section 16(1) The issue of the assessee's entitlement to deduction under Section 16(1) of the Income Tax Act was not elaborated upon in the judgment. Therefore, no specific analysis is provided for this issue. 4. Charging Interest under Section 234B The AO charged interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act. However, this issue was not specifically addressed in the judgment, and no detailed analysis is provided for this issue. Conclusion The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal, confirming the findings of the ITAT and CIT(A) that the gifts received by the assessee were genuine and the identity and creditworthiness of the donors were established. The court concluded that no substantial question of law arose from the appeal, and the findings of fact by the lower authorities were based on sufficient evidence. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
