2021 (4) TMI 398 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash deposits - addition made as no explanation to source of cash deposit in the bank account maintained by the assessee - explanation of the assessee is that said deposit has been made out of cash gifts received by her on the occasion of her marriage - Admittedly, both the relatives had expired long back and custodian handed over the cash gifts to the assessee on their behalf at the time of marriage - HELD THAT - AO stated that the original affidavits were produced for verification which appears to be genuine and the source of cash deposit appears to be explained. We therefore find that once the AO has examined the documents so produced by the assessee and recorded his satisfaction regarding the identity of the donors, the genuineness of the gift and the source of such gift, the assessee has discharged the necessary onus cast on her and no addition can be made in her hands. Hence, the addition so made is directed to be deleted. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of addition of ?5,00,000 by CIT(A) without appreciating the facts.
2. Legitimacy of the ?5,00,000 as unexplained source of marriage gifts.
3. Consideration of remand report by AO stating the affidavits appeared genuine and sources of cash deposit explained.
4. Burden of proof and evidentiary requirements for cash gifts received on marriage.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Confirmation of Addition by CIT(A):
The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the addition of ?5,00,000, arguing that it was based on incorrect assumptions and contrary conjectures. The CIT(A) had confirmed the addition made by the AO, which was contested by the assessee on the grounds that the addition was illegal and against the real facts.

2. Legitimacy of ?5,00,000 as Unexplained Marriage Gifts:
The assessee claimed that the ?5,00,000 was part of the cash gifts received during her marriage from relatives, specifically from her grandmother-in-law and great-grandmother-in-law. The AO doubted the genuineness of these gifts, citing the donors' lack of tax records and bank accounts. The assessee provided gift deeds and affidavits, asserting that the gifts were customary in her community.

3. Consideration of Remand Report:
The AO, in his remand report, acknowledged the genuineness of the affidavits and the source of the cash deposit. However, the CIT(A) dismissed this, stating that the affidavits were self-serving and unsupported by bank accounts or other evidence of the donors' sources. This led to the CIT(A) confirming the addition despite the AO's acceptance of the evidence.

4. Burden of Proof and Evidentiary Requirements:
The legal principle from CIT v. Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investment Ltd. was cited, emphasizing that the assessee only needed to prove the source of the credit, not the creditworthiness of the donors. The assessee had provided sufficient initial evidence, including gift deeds and donor identities. The CIT(A)'s requirement for further proof was deemed excessive, as the initial burden of proof had been met by the assessee.

Judgment:
The Tribunal noted that the AO had verified the documents and was satisfied with the genuineness of the gifts and their sources. The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged her onus by providing necessary documentation, and the AO's satisfaction should have sufficed. The CIT(A)'s dismissal based on assumptions and without further inquiry was not justified. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the ?5,00,000 addition, allowing the assessee's appeal.

Final Order:
The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the addition of ?5,00,000 was deleted. The judgment emphasized the importance of the AO's findings and the adequacy of the evidence provided by the assessee.

Order Pronounced:
The order was pronounced in the open Court on 08/04/2021.