2011 (12) TMI 629

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Revenue was modified to include the legal heir Mr. Suresh Rajani consequent to the death of Mr. Prakash K. Rajani. The legal heir was brought on record by the AO, therefore, the appeal ITA 4807 is considered accordingly. 3. Briefly stated the facts are that the AO found that late Shri Prakash K. Rajani had received NRE gift of ₹ 13,00,000/- from his brother-in-law Mr. Dilip Bulchandani, resident of Dubai. Similarly, the AO also noticed that Mr. Pawan S. Rajani had also received a gift of ₹ 5,00,000/- from Mr. Dilip Bulchandani, who is the uncle of the assessee. In addition to the above ₹ 5 lakhs, Mr. Pawan S. Rajani had also received US$20000 converted to ₹ 9,20,479/- from Mr. Bhagwan Parsram Khemchandani, who i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nti ty of the donor is not in question. The AO has raised doubt about that capacity of the donor and the genuineness of the transaction. The appel lant has produced copies of visiting cards, banker's letter conf irming the gif t remi ttance, copy of trade licence issued by the UAE, evidence of the immovable property in the name of the NRI Donor at Dubai , UAE. The appellant also produced evidences of NRE fixed deposits of about ₹ 20 lakhs. These evidences cumulatively taken together adequately discharge it onus on its part to establish the capacity of the donor and genuineness of the transaction. The AO has not been able to rebut these evidences. There has to be something more than mere suspicion to make the addition. 4. Agg .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat since the issue is not of bogus gifts, the case law relied upon the learned DR are not applicable to the facts of the case of the assessee. 7. We have considered the issue and examined the orders of the authorities. The AO did not doubt the genuineness of the gifts and has not held the gifts as bogus. The only contention of the AO is that even though the identity of the donors is proved but the creditworthiness is not proved. The assessee furnished further evidences in the form of statements and properties which were remanded to the AO for examination by the CIT(A) in respect of the creditworthiness of the said donors. As there is no allegation that the gifts are bogus and the gifts received from the relatives, which is also not disp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X