9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he genuineness of the gift. - It is well settled that mere identification of donor and showing the movement of gift amount through banking channel is not enough to prove genuineness of the gift - NRI gift could not be accepted as genuine unless the assessee was able to prove natural love and affection and financial capacity of the donor. - Decided against the assessee - ITA No. 356 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 15-2-2011 - MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrated in the appeal are that in pursuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed his return on 20.9.2001 for the assessment year 1994-95 declaring an income of Rs.45,534/- with a note that during the financial year 1993-94, he had received a gift of Rs.2,00,000/- from NRE Account of Shri Sanjeev Gupta vide DD No.190733 dated 28.10.1993. The gift of Rs.2,00,000/- was proved to be bogus as admitted by the donor Shri Sanjeev Gupta. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.2,00,000/- treating it as undisclosed income of the assessee under Section 68 of the Act. Further, addition of Rs.20,000/- at the rate of 10% of bogus gift representing the premium paid for arranging such bogus gift was also made. Accordingly, total a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Sajan Dass and Sons v. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 435. We are of the view that the Assessing Officer and the CIT (A) were justified in holding that the gift in question was bogus and the Tribunal committed patent error in accepting the gift as genuine. Admittedly, the donor had no relationship with the assessee. He had no occasion to give the gift. He was not produced. His financial capacity was not established. His bank statement was not produced. The Tribunal failed to appreciate these facts. It, thus, committed patent error of law in holding that the assessee discharged onus on him to prove the genuineness of the gift. Its order is, thus, perverse. In identical situation, this Court held that NRI gift could not be accepted as genuine unl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
