9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8223;) bond as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Ground No.2 is with regard to raising the issue of India Millennium Deposit cash not be brought to tax in the hands of appellant by invoking provisions of Section 56(2)(v) of the Act. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income on 31.10.2006 declaring a total income of Rs. 22,168/-. Thereafter the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee firm derived income from the share of profit from registered firm, short term capital gains and interest. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee has claimed IMD bonds of Rs. 82,39,653/- in the bank account as gift and claimed the same as exempt under the provisions of Section 10(15)(iid)(c) of the Act. The assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer that gift from three persons aggregating to Rs. 120 US$ = Rs. 52.81 lakhs in terms of Indian currency was received by the assessee. The said gifts were transferred by the donors in favour of the assessee vide letter dated 30.9.2005 and these deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aria US$5,000 10.7.2001 27.9.2005 We find that an identical issue has been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nilesh Jhaveri (HUF) (supra) in another family HUF family of assessee on identical facts, where the Tribunal has decided the issue as under: "2.2 Matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority, wherein various contentions were mainly raised with regard to IMDs are not any sum of money and further, regarding genuineness of creditor. Assessee raised various submissions and considering the same, CIT(A) confirmed the order of Assessing Officer. 2.3 Same has been opposed before us on behalf of assessee inter alia submitting that: i. Assessee has received IMD as gift of IMD of US$ 1,00,000/- on 31.08.2004 from Shri Sunil Kumar Khimchand Gandhi and not on 26.09.2005 as alleged by the Assessing Officer. ii. It was submitted that these IMDs were repaid / matured on 29.12.2005 and the assessee received the total amount of Rs. 68,66,378/- on maturity of IMDs comprising of principal amount of Rs. 45,00,911/- and interest amount of Rs. 23,65,467/- and that the said amount was claimed as non taxable by the assessee. iii. It was f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finance business; and (j) source of the gift was the receipt through a cheque of Rs. 2,46,000 received by the donor from „B‟ Ltd. and a cash amount of Rs. 3,500. 2.5 All these facts establish the fact that a gift was received by assessee and the sources thereof are satisfactorily explainable and proved putting its genuineness beyond doubt. The adverse facts as pointed out by the Accountant Member: (i) that the assessee or his father never made any gift of any amount to anybody; (ii) that the gift was not on any occasion or function; (iii) that the donor visited his house one or two times though never beyond the drawing room; (iv) that the donor was a person of low financial status having monthly income of less than Rs. 5,000/- and has shown withdrawals from his capital account less than Rs. 3,000/- per month; (v) that the donor has no house, no telephone number, no fixed deposit and not any other immovable assets; or that the original deposit by the donor of Rs. 1,25,000/- with „B‟ Ltd. was not proved, were not so material to hold the gift was not a genuine one or sources thereof unsatisfactory so long as the immediate source of the gift was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... favour of the assessee is fortified with numerous evidences which forms a complete chain of events, as has been discussed above. The occasion of having made this gift has been explained by the donor himself that he was obliged by the father of the donee in the year 1994 during his visit to deity Vaishno Devi when the father of the assessee helped him and his family members. Thus, the occasion and reason for making a gift are also given by the donor, albeit, as of now these are no longer the requirements of a valid gift in view of recent decision of the Tribunal in Miss Mayawati‟s case, including the one of this very Bench. The source of gift has also been explained with the help of possible and feasible evidences which are available on the record. Against that are pitted the inferences of learned AO that this is not proved that is not proved and other whys and wherefores. In these circumstances, it would be too harsh and too illogical to decide against the assessee who has produced entire evidences desired, required and insisted on by learned AO and that would result in an illegality and injustice. We have to go by evidences available on the record. The possibilities and real ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
