2015 (10) TMI 2047 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of unexplained gift - genuineness of the transaction - Held that - The assessee has not brought on record the bank statement of the said donor or the concerned entity owned by the said donor. Copy of the affidavit cum gift deed of Mr. J. S. Pawar is available on page No. 15 of the paper book as per which he is residing at Kent U.K. and it is stated therein that in consideration of natural love and affection, he has gifted a sum of Pounds 7,000 to the assessee but in this affidavit cum gift deed also, it is nowhere stated that he is friend or relative of the assessee. This is also not stated in the affidavit cum gift deed that the money has been transferred from the bank account of the said donor. In view of this position noted by learned CIT(A) that as per the details of the transfer of the money as submitted by the assessee, it is seen that it does not give the name of remitter who is alleged donor and in fact the document states that the ordering customer is Zahrat Al Khaleej Est of Dubai. Considering all these facts, we find that the assessee has not been able to establish the identity or creditworthiness of the said donor and he also could not establish the genuineness of the transaction in the facts of the present case. In fact, as per the details provided by the assessee himself, the ordering customer is not the alleged donor but a different person of Dubai. - Decided against assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 5,25,784/- on account of unexplained gift.
2. Genuineness of the transaction.
3. Identity of the donor.
4. Jurisdiction of the order passed under section 153(A) without a search warrant in the name of the assessee.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 5,25,784/- on Account of Unexplained Gift:
The assessee challenged the addition upheld by the CIT(A) on the grounds of unexplained gift. The CIT(A) noted that the identity of the donor was not convincingly established, and the documents provided did not adequately prove the donor's identity or the genuineness of the transaction. The ordering customer for the money transfer was different from the alleged donor, and no bank statement from the donor was provided to substantiate the claim.

2. Genuineness of the Transaction:
The CIT(A) emphasized that for a gift to be genuine, the existence of natural love and affection, voluntary nature, and the occasion for giving the gift must be proven. The assessee failed to establish any relationship or acquaintance with the donor. The CIT(A) concluded that the transaction lacked the necessary elements to be considered genuine, as the donor's identity and the relationship with the assessee were not established, and the transaction details did not match the claimed donor's information.

3. Identity of the Donor:
The CIT(A) found that the identity of the donor was not convincingly established. The provided passport copy of the alleged donor was not clear, and it was not proven that the donor was in India at the time of signing the gift deed. The money transfer documents indicated a different ordering customer, further questioning the donor's identity. The assessee failed to submit a bank statement from the alleged donor, which could have proven the transfer of funds from the donor's account.

4. Jurisdiction of the Order Passed Under Section 153(A) Without a Search Warrant:
The additional ground raised by the assessee was regarding the jurisdiction of the order passed under section 153(A) without a search warrant in the assessee's name. The Tribunal referred to a similar case (Laxmi Shankar Bajpai) and noted that as per Section 292CC of the Act, assessments can be made individually even if the search authorization is in joint names. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the issue was covered against the assessee by the judgment of the larger Bench of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, which held that assessments could be made individually despite joint search authorizations.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the assessee failed to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the donor and the genuineness of the transaction. The additional ground regarding the jurisdiction of the order under section 153(A) was also rejected based on the retrospective amendment in the Income Tax Act and relevant judicial precedents. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, resulting in the dismissal of the assessee's appeal.

← Previous Next →