TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 75
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t inspite of the fact that the appellant herein duly proved the creditworthiness of the depositor and genuineness of the gifts by way of adequate documentary evidence? B. Whether in the facts and circumstances of he case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in requiring the appellant herein to prove source of the donors and their capacity to make gifts?" Brief facts are as under: For the assessment year 2005-06 in the return filed, the assessee had declared income of Rs.4.68 lacs (rounded off). During scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that in the bank account of the assessee, during the year under consideration, following amounts were deposited through bank cheques/drafts: Date Cheque No. Bank's Nam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceived such gifts from such persons. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, the assessee as well as the Revenue, both approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Revenue and rejected that of the assessee. The assessee has therefore challenged the decision of the Tribunal by filing these appeals. Learned counsel Shri Soparkar for the appellant vehemently contended that the assessee established the genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the donors. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal ought to have accepted the factum of the gifts. He submitted that the Tribunal committed serious error in rejecting the case of the appellant when the assessee had given full explanation for the amounts rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is not on record. 14. The assessee has placed in paper book the copies of Income tax returns filed by the 3 donors in USA. From the copies of the income tax returns of the donors filed in USA for calendar year 2004 it is seen that the donors have filed their income tax returns jointly with their spouse which appears to be as per the prevailing tax laws in USA. The details and other facts with respect to the donors that emerge from the returns of income filed by them are as under: Sl Name of the donor Occupation (as per return of income Taxable Income (US$) Total taxes payable (US$) Income after payment of Tax (US$) Gift given (US$ to assesse considering 1 US$ = Rs.43) Gift given to assessee (Rs.) 1 Ramanbha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tax return at page 26 of the paper book reveals that they have stated to have given aggregate gift of US $251 in the year. Thus their total gifts as reported in their income tax return is of US $251. In the present case Shri Dilip Patel has stated to have given gift of over US $10,000 to assessee which therefore leads to the conclusions that the gift to assessee has not been disclosed by them in the return of income. (d) In the case of Shri Vipul Patel his joint total income along with his wife after payment of taxes for calendar year 2004 is US $34764. The gift of US $10023 to assessee thus amounts to around 29% of their joint income after payment of tax. 16. Before us nothing has been brought on record to prove the relationship bet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad given gift worth 10267 US $. In the return, he had not disclosed such gifts and only declared aggregate gift of 251 US $. In case of last donor Vipul Patel, his total income jointly with his wife after tax was 34764 US $ out of which he gave nearly 30%, i.e. 10023 US $ as gift to the assessee. Such being the facts, the Tribunal, in our opinion, rightly came to the conclusion that the amounts in question were correctly treated by the Assessing Officer as income of the assessee. In addition to relying on the decisions of the High Courts, the Tribunal relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. P. Mohanakala, 291 ITR 278 (SC). In such decision, in the context of section 68 of the Act, the Apex Court observed that in case....