9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and ITA No. 38/2011 and ITA No. 39/2011 are relating to the assessment year 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 respectively in respect of the appellant Mukesh Kumar Ranka. 2. These appeals are heard on the question of admission analogously since they have been filed against the common order involving the same issues. 3. The appellants are individuals and search on the residential and business premises of the appellant was conducted on 25/9/2003 and they were issued notices under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, requiring them to file their return of income, accordingly they had filed the returns. They did not maintain the books of account and had disclosed the profit under Section 44(AD) of the Income Tax Act. Their cases were under compul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en taken into consideration. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and minutely perused the record of the case. This issue has elaborately been dealt with by the CIT (Appeals) who had examined the appellants in order to ascertain the genuineness of the transaction. Before the CIT (Appeals) the appellants admitted that the specific use to which the gift was put is not known. They also admitted that no other person gave such gifts nor they or their wives gave any gift to anyone. They did not even have the phone number and address of the donors Shri Sitlani and Lalwani. They had no family or social relation with the donors. The Commissioner also noted that the appellants are involved in construction activity and real estate b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITAT, after considering the mater on record held that:- "We have considered the rival contentions, carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and find from record that both the assessee were in receipt of huge amounts of gift either in their own name or in the names of their family members. The donor was not related with the assessee in any way. Both were belonging to the different community. The capacity of the donor to advance the gifted amount was not established. Even though during the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee produced one of the donors Deepak Lalwani. However, on the basis of his bank statement, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) found that he was not capable to give the alleged amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thiness of the creditor. In the present case, the appellants have failed to satisfy the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the creditor, therefore, no error has been committed by the Tribunal as well as the revenue authorities in rejecting the appellants claim. Gauhati High Court has further held that burden is on the assessee to prove the above three conditions, which the appellants in the present case have failed to discharge. 10. The appellants have further relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the matter of CIT v. Mayawati [2011] 201 Taxman 1/338 ITR 563, but the said judgment was on different fact situation where the donors had appeared before the department submitted material including the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
