9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in USA. Thus the source and genuineness is being proved beyond doubt, the assessee having received the above gifts from his brother, who is as per the Explanation 2 to Section 56(2)(v) of the Act, there need not be any occasion for receipt of gift by the assessee. In our considered opinion, the whole approach of the A.O. is wholly perverse which cannot be sustained in law and therefore the deletion by the Ld. CIT(A) does not require any interference. Thus the Grounds raised by the Revenue are without merits and the same are liable to be rejected. - ITA No. 379/Ahd/2020 - - - Dated:- 19-10-2022 - Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Samir Tekriwal, CIT/DR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee replied that he received the gifts in the form of shares and debentures of Rs. 2,61,82,207/- on 04.10.2011 from his brother Shri Sanjay N. Shah residing in U.S.A. Similarly, the assessee received gift of Rs. 44,00,000/- on 25.11.2011, Rs. 13,436/- on 02.01.2012 and Rs. 1,736/- on 04.01.2012 from his brother and filed a copy of declaration of the gift and the same is made out of natural love and affection towards his brother namely the assessee hearing. The A.O. also found that the assessee had gifted Rs. 53,71,016/- to Seema S. Shah, Rs. 26,71,238/- to Shailja S. Shah and Rs. 7,53,138/- to Sapna S. Shah who are the three daughters of his assessee s brother Shri Sanjay R. Shah. The Assessing Officer disbelieved the above gifts from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... source of investment in shares by the donor. 4.2. The assessee in his Rebuttal explained that off market transactions would not be reflected in the statement of NSDL since the assesse s brother by way of gift transferred the shares to the assessee which is not a sale or purchase. A copy of the DMAT A/c of donor and donee both showing transfer of shares from the account of the donor to the account of the donee have been submitted and examined by the A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings. Hence this objection has no merits. 4.3. Regarding the source of investment of donor, the assessee had already submitted copies of the Income Tax return filed by the donor under the USA laws showing the source of income of the donor and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing Officer. 5. Aggrieved against the same, the Revenue is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the C.I.T( Appeal) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,06,13,009/- on account of explained cash credits u/s.68 of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the return of income of the donor for last 3 years which the assessee has submitted, in Schedule-A of the return of income, an aggregate of U.S,$155847 only was reflected. Thus, the assessee has not discharged the onus to prove the creditworthiness of the transactions and capacity of the donor. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts that the evidences before the Ld.CIT(A), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gifts by stating that there is no occasion for giving gifts; there being nothing to show that transaction was by way of money-laundering, addition could not be made towards gifts, when identity of donor and genuineness of transactions was proved to satisfaction of Assessing Officer. 6.1. Similarly, the Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Aurn Kumar Kothari (cited supra) held that gift without occasion cannot be doubted as follows: Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits [Gifts] - Assessment year 2006-07 - Assessing Officer disallowed three gifts received by assesses from his brothers on ground that creditworthiness of gifts was not proved and there was no occasion for giving said gifts - On appeal, both, C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the two appellate bodies confirming the order of the AO are also perverse. 22. The finding CIT(A) that gifts are traditional in nature, that they are given in functions like marriages etc., that there was no such occasion warranting receipt of gift from Nirmala to the assessee, and that it is very odd to note that the entire amount received from her daughter has been diverted to the assessee as a gift without any consideration, look to us to be empty sermons as the CIT (A) evidently judged the conduct of the parties from his personal perception, which is wholly impermissible. 23. When the Act itself does not envisage any occasion for a relative to give a gift, it is well-nigh impermissible for any authority and even for that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
