9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 135 - HC - Income TaxReceipt of gift by a Non resident Indian - Unexplained income of the assessees - Held that - We are bound by the decision of in the case of Murlidhar Lahorimal 2005 (11) TMI 32 - GUJARAT High Court wherein it is held that the assessee cannot be asked to prove the source of source. Moreover, Gift Tax Act nowhere provides that a gift by somebody who is not creditworthy is not a gift. The Tribunal instead of addressing itself to the requirement of Section 68 of the Act, has adopted an approach which is unwarranted in law. The assessee pointed out that it had received a gift from Shri Chinubhai Thakkar produces the bank certificate and gift deed. The gift is given by way of a cheque. The revenue does not dispute any of these facts. - Decided in favour of the assessees.
Issues:
Interpretation of Sections 68 and 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding unexplained income from gifts. Analysis: The High Court considered the appeal challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision regarding the treatment of a gift of Rs. 2,00,000 as unexplained income under Sections 68 or 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal had held that if Section 68 does not apply, Section 69 would, and creditworthiness of the donor must be proved. The assessees received the gift from a non-resident Indian through a cheque from his Non Resident External Account. The Assessing Officer added the amount as unexplained cash credit due to lack of proof of the donor's financial capacity. However, the CIT (Appeals) allowed the appeal. The assessees argued that the donor's creditworthiness was evident from the gift deed and receipt of the cheque from the NRE account, eliminating suspicion of unaccounted money. The Court examined the submissions of both parties and found that the assessees had provided complete details of the donor's identity, supported by the Deed of Gift and cheque from the NRE account. Citing precedents like Murlidhar Lahorimal's case, the Court emphasized that the onus is on the assessee to explain the nature and source of the credit, not the source of the source. The Tribunal's failure to consider the established identity and genuineness of the gift led to an unwarranted decision. Referring to Heena Sharma's case, the Court reiterated the importance of established identity and genuineness in such transactions. In contrast, the revenue relied on a Delhi High Court case stating that mere identification of the donor and movement of the gift through banking channels are insufficient to establish genuineness. However, the Court found the facts in the present case aligned with the Murlidhar Lahorimal case, where the Tribunal's decision was upheld based on the gift being paid through a cheque. The Court highlighted that the Gift Tax Act does not require the donor to be creditworthy for a gift to be valid. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the assessees, stating that the Tribunal's approach was legally unwarranted, and the gifts were genuine and creditworthy, as evidenced by the bank certificate and gift deed. Therefore, the Court answered the substantial question of law in favor of the assessees, allowing the appeals and overturning the Tribunal's decision.
|
