2019 (10) TMI 904 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of gift received from assessee s brother - HELD THAT - Assessee has discharged his burden casted upon him that the gift received by him is a genuine gift. If at all, the Assessing Officer has any doubt about the gift transaction, he ought to have made a detailed enquiry and to prove that the gift received by the assessee is not a genuine gift. In this case, no such exercise has been done by the AO. AO has failed to prove the gift received by the assessee is not a genuine gift and simply addition is made, the same is confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Gift received by the assessee cannot be considered as not genuine gift. The assessee has proved the identity of the parties, creditworthiness of the donor and genuineness, therefore, the assessee has discharged burden casted upon him. It is further observed that no occasion is required to receive the gift by the assessee from his brother-Shri V.Bala Sudhakar. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is not correct in denying the gift received by the assessee is not a genuine gift. Under the similar circumstances, the assessee also received gift in earlier years, the same has been considered by the coordinate bench of the tribunal in assessee s own case 2016 (11) TMI 1039 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM for the A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2011-12 and held that the gift received by the assessee is a genuine gift from his brother and the addition made by the Assessing Officer is deleted. Addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) cannot survive - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Addition of gift received from brother

Analysis:
The only issue raised in this appeal was the addition of a gift amount of &8377; 12,53,000 received from the assessee's brother. The Assessing Officer treated the gift as unexplained investment due to lack of evidence regarding the source and creditworthiness of the donor. The Assessing Officer noted discrepancies in the withdrawals and deposits made by the donor, leading to the conclusion that the gift was not genuine. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision.

The assessee contended that the gift was received through legitimate banking channels and provided documentary evidence to support the transaction. The burden was placed on the Assessing Officer to prove that the money was not a gift from the brother. The assessee cited a previous decision by the ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench in their favor.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the gift was indeed received from the brother, who had deposited the same amount in Qatar and in the assessee's HDFC bank account. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had fulfilled the burden of proving the gift's genuineness by providing bank statements, confirmation letter from the brother, and other relevant documents. The Tribunal criticized the Assessing Officer for not conducting a thorough investigation to disprove the gift's authenticity. Referring to a previous decision in the assessee's favor, the Tribunal concluded that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) was unwarranted. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, canceling the ld. CIT(A)'s order.

In summary, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the gift received from the brother was genuine and properly documented through banking channels. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof had been met by the assessee and criticized the Assessing Officer for not conducting a detailed inquiry to refute the genuineness of the gift. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision supporting the genuineness of gifts received by the assessee from the same donor in earlier years.