TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 314
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 65,75,272/- which was treated by Assessing Officer as non genuine gifts, received by assessee as unaccounted income from undisclosed sources? (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in nor properly appreciating the facts and the material on record and therefore the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse? Facts in this case are narrated in a capsulized form : 2. For the assessment year 2003-2004, respondent assessee had shown receipt of gifts to the tune of Rs. 65,75,272/- from 12 different persons received through 11 demand drafts issued on a single day i.e. on 21.3.2003....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y CIT(A) was deleted. Therefore, the present appeal with the aforementioned substantial questions of law. 5. Learned counsel Mrs. Mauna Bhatt appearing for the Revenue has forcefully submitted before us that the Tribunal by its findings has attempted to shift the onus on the department by saying that motivation of gift transaction is irrelevant. She further submitted that all the 12 donors are unrelated and hail from a moderate economic strata and it is highly unlikely that on the very same day, they would all gift the assessee huge amount of gift with different demand drafts drawn from the same bank. 6. She heavily relied on the decisions of the Apex Court rendered in case of CIT v. P. reported in (2007) 291 ITR 278(SC) and decision ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee, addition was made under section 68 of the Act. Based on factual matrix available with the Apex Court, such gifts were held non genuine. 10. As far as decision of Subhash Chand Verma (supra), is concerned, the Court held that mere identification of the donor and establishing movement of gift through banking channels, would not be sufficient to establish their genuineness. There are other criteria also which will be required to be considered at the time of considering the plea of genuine gift. 11. In the instant case, as can be noted from the findings of the Tribunal, Assessing Officer had not summoned any of the donors. However, it had issued the letters under section 133(6) of the Act. Assessing Officer had also called ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pects. 13. Again, we also are of the opinion that essentially this case is based on material that had been adduced by the assessee before the Revenue Authorities. Tribunal while upholding the say of the assessee and deleting the addition made by both the adjudicating authorities have given cogent and sufficiently acceptable reasons for arriving at positive conclusions that such gifts are genuine and the transactions are creditworthy. 14. We are conscious that various aspects discussed by both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were causing concern to those authorities. Gifts to assessee by 11 different unrelated persons, residing at different places in Mumbai on the same day, with the draft of huge sum from the same bank and deposit wit....