TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (5) TMI 262
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee to produce these persons, but the assessee could not do so. The AO therefore, took the view that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the gifts and the creditworthiness of the donors. He therefore added the sum of Rs. 5 lacs as unexplained gifts. 2. Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed written submission in which it was stated that the donors were friends of the assessee, but they could not be produced because their whereabouts were not known to the wife of the deceased assessee. It was also stated that before the AO the assessee had filed affidavits from the donors, copies of their bank account, proof of filing IT returns etc., all of which went to show the creditworthiness of the donors and the genuineness of the gifts. 3. The CIT(A) found it surprising that the wife of the assessee did not know the whereabouts of the donors, who had made the gifts to the assessee out of natural love and affection. He observed that it was surprising that they did not continue the old family relations which they claimed to have with the assessee. He further noted that Satish Kumar Dhingra did not care to comply with the summons. From the bank accounts of the donor, he no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pleaded that the addition was unjustified. 5. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the learned representative for the assessee relied on the following authorities: (1) Nek Kumar vs. Asstt. CIT (2004) 191 CTR (Raj) 207 : (2005) 274 ITR 575 (Raj); (2) CIT vs. Mrs. Sunita Vachani (1990) 84 CTR (Del) 18 : (1990) 184 ITR 121 (Del); (3) CIT vs. R.S. Sibal (2004) 187 CTR (Del) 291 : (2004) 269 ITR 429 (Del); (4) Jawahar Lal Oswal vs. Asstt. CIT (2001) 71 TTJ (Chd) 240 : (1999) 71 ITD 324 (Chd); (5) Asstt. CIT vs. Manoj Kumar Sekhri (2004) 86 TTJ (Asr) 510 : (2005) 142 Taxman 15 (Asr)(Mag); (6) G.G. Films vs. ITO (1993) 45 TTJ (Coch) 644; (7) ITO vs. Kailash Chand Bansal (2003) 129 Taxman 112 (Del)(Mag); (8) ITO vs. Aee. Vee. Enterprises (ITA No. 5210/Del/2004, dt. 13th Dec., 2006) (Delhi Bench); (9) Essan Remedies Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (ITA No. 256/Del/2004, dt. 19th Jan., 2007) (Delhi Bench); (10) Smt. Neena Rastogi vs. Asstt. CIT (ITA No. 5086/Del/1991, dt. 6th Nov., 1996) (Delhi Bench); (11) Govind Prasad vs. ITO (ITA No. 4527/Del/2004, dt. 30th Nov., 2005) (Delhi Bench). 6. The learned senior Departmental Representative, on the other hand, conten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 and Rs. 95,667 for the asst. yrs. 2000-01 and 2001-02 respectively. The income consists of salary income of Rs. 48,000, capital gains and income from other sources. He has also filed a WT return for the asst. yr. 1999-2000 and has paid wealth-tax of Rs. 1,083 on net wealth of Rs. 16,03,284. The wealth consists of movable property in the form of shares for Rs. 8,50,000, loans and advances of Rs. 9,50,000, jewellery of Rs. 4,55,750 and the balance consists of household goods, furniture and fittings, cash and bank balances. His balance sheet as on 31st March, 2000 shows capital of Rs. 23,69,015. Turning to his bank account with Oriental Bank of Commerce, the opening balance as on 1st Oct., 2001 was Rs. 10,657. On 13th Oct., 2001, there is a deposit of Rs. 2,50,000 by cheque from which he has issued a pay order for Rs. 2,50,000 to the assessee on 15th Oct., 2001 after paying a commission of Rs. 250. He has filed an affidavit before the AO dt. 15th Oct., 2001 in which he has affirmed the gifts which he made out of natural love and affection for the assessee. In the case of Sudhir Duggal, we find that for the asst. yr. 2000-01, he declared income of Rs. 71,200 consisting of business in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case appears to us not a case where the creditworthiness of the donors and the genuineness of the gifts could be called in question. The donors had filed affidavits. Though, they could not be examined by the AO, since they were made borne on the file of the IT Department and their income-tax file numbers were made available to the AO, it was equally the duty of the AO to have taken steps to verify their assessment records and if necessary to also have them examined by the respective AOs having jurisdiction over the donors. It should be remembered that S.K. Katyal, the donee assessee had passed away in Nepal on 1st Sept., 2002 (death certificate filed) and his wife had to undertake the onus of gathering the evidence in support of the gifts. It cannot be disputed that this would have been not an easy job. Despite the difficulties, the assessee's wife had managed to obtain the bank account details of the donors from which the immediate source of the gifts could be established. She could also manage to obtain evidence to show that the donors were assessed to tax. In these circumstances, we are inclined to hold that the assessee has discharged the initial burden to prove the gifts and t....