Gift genuineness and unexplained income: Tribunal's adverse finding upheld where evidence of donor capacity and transaction was inadequate.

A gift claim was rejected because the assessee did not establish the donor's identity, capacity and genuineness of the transaction with reliable evidence. An affidavit and bank statement were found insufficient: the affidavit was belated and internally inconsistent, while the record did not prove the donor's non-resident status, relationship with the assessee, or any occasion for the gift. In a section 260A challenge, the HC reiterated that it will not reappreciate evidence unless the Tribunal's finding is perverse. The Tribunal's conclusion that the alleged gift was not genuine was held to be a plausible factual finding, so the addition as unexplained income was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's finding that the alleged gift was not genuine and therefore liable to addition as unexplained income was perverse or unsupported by the record.

Analysis: The assessee was required to establish the identity of the donor, the donor's capacity to make the gift, and the genuineness of the transaction. The material relied upon consisted mainly of an affidavit and a bank account statement, but the affidavit was found to be belated, internally inconsistent, and unsupported by proof of the donor's non-resident status, relationship with the assessee, or any occasion for the gift. The bank entries also did not satisfactorily establish the donor's capacity or the true nature of the transaction. On a challenge under section 260A, the High Court does not reappreciate evidence unless the finding is perverse, and the Tribunal's view was a plausible factual conclusion based on the record.

Conclusion: The finding that the gift was not genuine was not perverse. The question of law was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

---